I applaud it. It’s great to have someone with a huge following standing up for the rights of creative people and making a stand against the corporate behemoths who have so much power they can make or break someone’s career.

For instance, you say:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company

It is shocking, like you say, that any company should expect to exploit artists. It’s not on at all.

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows

Ah.. but this is the thing Taylor, you say it’s not about you – but clearly it is. Why else would you make such a public statement about how you’re standing up for the rights of new artists and bands? Are you really supportive of other artists?

These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.

And this is the echoed sentiment of every professional photographer. Some are afraid to speak up for fear of being blacklisted by management and PR companies who seek to control the public perception of their talent.. For every artist that is in a secure enough financial and influential position to stand up against the likes of Apple without having to worry that Apple will publicly block your ability to earn a living from their iTunes market place, there are hundreds of professional concert photographers who don’t enjoy that security.. they don’t have the voice you do, and they don’t have the public favour that you have when it comes to demanding fair rights for their work, and they have a much higher risk of being prevented from working in future, not just at your shows, but any show which is connected by the same promoter, venue, PR, or management company.

Which brings me to the point of this open response to you. I admire your message, I really do. I just think it loses the gravitas it rightly deserves, because of this:

Now.. forgive me if I’m wrong, but if you take points 2 and 3 in that contract (which is provided to Photographers who need to agree to those terms before they are allowed to do their job in photographing you for editorial outlets), it appears to be a complete rights grab, and demands that you are granted free and unlimited use of our work, worldwide, in perpetuity. You say in your letter to Apple that “Three months is a long time to go unpaid”. But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….

How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great.. make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?

Photographers need to earn a living as well. Like Apple, you can afford to pay for photographs so please stop forcing us to hand them over to you while you prevent us from publishing them more than once, ever.

But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation

With all due respect to you too Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy. Photographers don’t ask for your music for free. Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.

if you look at the images and the screen shots, it is pretty clear that not only did taylor steal the photo, she did not even say she was going to do so to the photographer. she blatantly stole the image and used it to boost her likeness and branding.

What you Photographers forget is that, like Apple, you are parasitic. Unlike Apple, it’s symbiotic, but still, your photos of Ms. Swift would be of no particular value without her talent and that of the dozens of other paid professionals that help her look and sound great. So you’re gettng use of her talent, her fame, her celebrity, and her image. You aren’t paying HER for that, so why should she be paying you to use images of her own person?

She stood up for all musicians and artists (including photographers) with this, and has the clout to make a difference. That someone would disparage her for doing so is questionable at best.

This has me thinking. There was a piece that was on Last Week Tonight (admittedly comedy news) about revenge pornography, and how women, in order to get those pictures taken down had to essentially take nude pics of themselves and get a copyright, in order to have those photos removed from those websites.

So my question is: if the Taylor Swift brand have such a copywright over images of her performances or even just images of her aren’t they asserting their rights by making sure they can track those images?

I understand that photographers are artists as well and that it is more than the subject of a photograph that makes for a compelling image. But, do you pay the people who are in your photos?

Well said. I’m a wedding officiant in NJ, and I am so appreciative of any photos that my event photographers send my way. I always try to give appropriate credit and links and go out of my way to recommend my faves.

Taylor Swift is fast becoming the Kardashian of the music industry; anything for publicity.

To all those who aren’t getting why this is a big deal, let’s use a metaphor to explain the situation the photographers are in:

Imagine Taylor Swift was commissioned to perform her song ‘Blank Space’, for a cost of $10,000, once in front of the Sultan of Dubai. She will be paid the money by a third party, ‘Royal Life Magazine’, which is interested in covering the life of the Sultan. Pretty good, eh? $10,000 to perform one song.

Except, Taylor gets a contract saying that she can only perform the song once, but cannot ever perform it again after performing for the Sultan. She can’t perform the song on Kimmel Live, can’t perform it on tour, can’t perform it on MTV, or KROQ, or on her YouTube channel, her personal website… not anywhere else. She’s had her one use of the song, that’s it.

MEANWHILE, the contract insists that the Sultan, who has paid Taylor no money, is free to use ‘Blank Space’ as much as he likes. He can play it every time he’s on TV, whenever he’s coming off of a lear-jet, he can film TV commercials and use the song, he can make his own films and use the song as a backdrop to that film…

Would Taylor sign such a contract? Is such a contract respectful of her as an artist? Or is she getting a raw deal here? Does she rely on being able to exploit ‘Blank Space’ across multiple mediums (radio, Vimeo, iTunes, Best Buy) to make a living?

Think about this metaphor. Photographers are creative artists. Don’t be the Sultan, Taylor.

Do creative people need to be Taylor Swift before big Tech listens to The Rights of The People in The U.S. United States Patent and Trademark Office Office or in The U.S. Copyright Office? If so, then I need more Facebook “friends” or followers. How about Google? Yahoo! and other Powerful Tech Companies? Do they respect it? Wait three (3) months and we’ll tell you if you getting paid or not…LOL

I’m sorry but your point is not very valid, you’re drawing a flawed analogy. I get what you’re trying to say and you have a good idea but the way you’re trying to support it doesn’t stand up to scrutibity

I absolutely concur with Hhh. Your mixing “apples” and oranges. The apple issue is one of legal nature. When a song is copyrighted and then subsequently released, royalties are legally due to both the artist/band and the copyright holders (typically those who wrote the song). By apple choosing to not to pay those royalty payments, they were in direct conflict. Apple was simply trying to cover the cost of marketing a free trial period for their site at the expense of the artists and Taylor was 100% correct for standing up, not only for herself, but all music artists and composers of music.

In your case, you trying to draw a similar conclusion, but the reality is that Taylor is not preventing you from being paid. She’s simply controlling HER image and associated rights, which is 100% in line with all copyright statutes and law. She has the legal right to control distribution, by whom and to whom.

Ability to spell has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. You didn’t capitalize either of your sentences, and you’re attacking someone else’s keyboarding skills. (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ad_hominem)

If you have to attack someone’s spelling or grammar it’s because you have nothing better to say in retort. It’s a little pathetic, unsympathetic to simple typing errors and extremely ableist to those with dyslexia or similar difficulties.

Mister X – A is vegetarian.
Lady Y reply – Hitler was vegetarian too then A is evil like Hitler

Actually Ropodope used a “diversione”. He moved the argument from the analogy between musician and photographer to the correct spelling. The subsequent analogy could resemble an “ad personam” but there is no correlation with the main argument.

A work for hire contract is when someone pays you for work you do for them.

Here Taylor Swift isn’t paying the photographers.

In order for them to get access to her concert to do their job trying to get photos for a newspaper, or media source, she’s telling them she can own their work.. for FREE and although they’re not allowed to let any publications use their work more than once, ever, she’s allowed to destroy the market for their work by giving it away for free (even though she didn’t pay for it) to any publication.

This is a horrible, horrible practice, and part of what’s made it impossible to make a living as a concert photographer.

Most clients will want perpetual rights to republish their articles these days for compilations, etc, and newspapers literally can’t run photos they can’t get these rights to.

In addition, this policy shows taylor swift doesn’t understand how photographers make their rent, OR she expects that musicians, producers and writers deserves to get payment for their work traditionally when their music is played or re-used, yet photographers don’t deserve payment when their images are shown.

Taylor swift wouldn’t expect to write a song, and have one fan pay for it once, then have an agency give it away for free, yet she is asking photographers to allow one client to use the photo once, then give the rights to her for free, and never allow any other clients to also use the photo (which is how photographers, like musicians, actually earn a living).

I hope this does a good job of explaining why this is being brought up when she’s talking to apple for musicians to get paid.

“while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity….” Sorry, I didn’t get that from #3 which clearly states their rights “FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE”.

So if I correctly read between the lines, you got this as part of a response to a “press pass” application. One where you get a free ticket into the show and can bring equipment to document that show for a pre-qualified publication that you work for (either staff or freelance) as long as you abide by the conditions set forth above. Not really sure what you’re complaining about… Shoot the gig according to the rules or stay home. If I were Taylor Swift, I wouldn’t want 80 trillion shots of my shows appearing on iStock for $1 either, it devalues the brand. This is FAR different than her calling you up and asking to shoot 3 months of her tour FOR FREE. Further, I bet she already has a photographer on staff, making great money. You are not that photographer, so you cut the best deal you can with the most lucrative publication you can find, and be happy they aren’t handing out press passes like candy at a parade, or you really would be shooting for free.

True. Whatever the point of the photographer is, the thing is Taking photos and wanting publicists to buy it is like being in a contest, you either win or lose. It’s different from offering your music to the public. Sorry, but it’s just so wrong to compare.

Jim, I think you misinterpret “non-commercial use” in the contract. It means Taylor Swift will not resell the photographer’s work. The contract allows her unlimited use of the work for her own commercial purposes, such as public relations.

JIM. Hit the nail ON THE HEAD. If I pay to set up a show, and you want to photograph the show, you are entitled to NOTHING. TS may agree to anything she chooses to, but this is NOT like your right to go take pictures of a National Monument. This is a PRODUCT. She owns her brand fully, and it is crazy to think that someone on that tier of the industry WOULDN’T be highly restrictive. It is not hypocritical. She’s entitled to the benefits of her work. You are not entitled to the benefits of her work.

You don’t see the hypocrisy, Jim? It’s pretty obvious. I too have shot far bigger acts than Taylor Swift and frequently had to sign according to these bands’ T&Cs, but none have been half as restrictive or plain greedy as this one.

It may not be an equivalent situation, but the point is still valid that it involves taking people’s work and expecting to use it without paying them for it (forever) and at the same time restricting them from using it more than once! Why is that necessary? So don’t give out so many press passes if you don’t want too many pictures floating about. And if you have your own (paid) photographers then you don’t need to use other people’s work without paying them for it. I’m sure there are ways to address concerns about having their pictures sold nilly willy all over the place without the kind of draconian restrictions in that contract.

In reply to DAP: “Whatever the point of being a photographer is…”– let me stop you there, saying there’s a “point” seems to question the integrity of concert photographers, and it’s insulting. Photographers are artists, just like musical artists, and all other types of artists. It’s simply ignorant to think you can just point a camera and get an amazing photo (this can happen every once and awhile, but all photographers know that with no technique or knowledge of composition, your photos will, frankly, be shit)– as if photography is simply a hobby that anyone can do. If that were the case, people wouldn’t hire photographers to take the photos they need, they would take the photos themselves. Do you think you can just walk into a room and casually shoot a high-fashion shoot as well as Annie Leibovitz? These photographers build up their names because they’re talented artists who have a passion for what they do–similar to the “indie” music artists Taylor is standing up for who are breaking into the music scene. It’s NOT wrong to compare, because when it comes down to it, we are simply talking about artists getting paid for their hard work. Suggesting that a photographer going to a Taylor Swift concert is solely taking a photo to give to a news site for money cheapens it. Yes, freelance photographers seek out press passes and compensation from different press companies, but as a freelance photographer a great way to build up your portfolio and gain experience is concert photography. On the same note, a photographer may just enjoy concert photography over other types of photography. Photographers just want to pursue their love and passion (just like musical, fine, graphic, etc. artists do) but they need to get paid, as well. It’s not “like being in a contest”, “win or lose”, it’s “work hard to perfect your skills, then showcase those skills through press or personal outlets to gain more clientele and keep your dream alive”. Please respect the job of photographers instead of trying to cheapen it to something along the lines of a kid with an Elph who’s just trying to make a quick buck.

For starters, you ARE being paid for the product you are selling the artist. You take a picture. You sell it to Taylor. Transaction complete. It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.

If I’m a roofer, I don’t charge you every time it rains. I build your roof, you pay me. Done.

A streaming service is a different beast. A tangible good or a digital file is not directly being purchased. The only way for the artist to receive payment is for a royalty to be paid every time a song is streamed to the consumer. Alternatively, you could purchase Taylor’s album on iTunes, download it, and forever have the digital files. You don’t continue to pay Taylor in that scenario.

“It’s just like purchasing Taylor’s CD at Best Buy. You pay for the CD. Done. You don’t have to pay again every time you put it in your CD player.” So why should a radio station have to pay every time they play it if they buy the cd in the first place?

They are not demanding your work for free. You get a free ticket, access to a special place to take your pictures and you can sell them afterwards. Factoring in the ticket prizes etc. that´s a good deal for you. How often was your work used by the management? Is there a reference to you when they do?

A free ticket? You mean kept outside, until escorted in to shoot songs 2 and 3, then escorted out. Access to a ‘special place’ and sell them afterwards? How is doing my job a good deal for me when the artist wants to use my photos without paying for them? I don’t go to work for the benefit of a ‘free concert’. I go to work so that their PR company can justify charging the artist a retainer for publicity “they” have generated in the press, for which I am contributing to, and expecting to be paid for.

I agree with you. The original blogger’s logic is completely off. You, Mr. Roofer, are absolutely correct in your logic. You’re comparing apples to apples. He is not. And, I’m a photographer. So I understand his biz. If someone licenses a photo that’s taken of any artist, this contract says the photographer will be paid for a one-time use of that photo – if it is picked up. That ensures it doesn’t show up in some unrelated context, goodness knows when and represented in goodness knows what context without authorization. Well, a lot of businesses produce merch on spec, hoping customers will buy their products. That’s the risk of business. And, businesses (including freelance photogs) get tax deductions to help cover some of the costs of doing biz. It doesn’t matter either whether you think your ‘product’ is better than someone else’s. That’s irrelevant. What matters is who is willing to buy. And the terms under which they are willing to buy. This contract is very clear in its terms about licensing any given photo that’s optioned for pay for a single use.

You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not about whether my photograph sells or not.. it’s about the fact that Ms. Swift objects to Apple demanding the right to distribute her music to every new customer for a period of 3 months, without having to pay her a dime.. giving her work away for free.
Her restrictions on photographers say that she demands the right to use photos without paying the photographer, and even more, GIVE them to the very publications that photographer normally earns a wage from, forever – while additionally preventing the photographer from being able to use his own work ever again… She’s telling Apple she doesn’t like them giving her work away, while she’s happily reserving the right to give everyone elses work away…

Neither paparazzi or work for hire but a freelance who was commissioned by a newspaper. This is not a work for hire contract, but a contract presented to every photographer who are commissioned to photograph her shows.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not intimately knowledgeable about the photography profession but I suspect trying to compare photographic licensing to music licensing is about as misaligned as trying to compare game licensing to music licensing. For example, developers of apps on the iOS store get 70% cut, which is different to what musicians get paid, who are in turn producing a product that is sold in a different manner to photographs. To try and put them all in the same category is a bit disingenuous. Yes, photographers get a raw deal at times but an opinion piece like this may not win you much support.

In all of those cases, the person developing the product does not lose the rights to their product.

As a photographer, it is the shittiest possible experience to be told “We’re only going to pay you $350 up front, because that’s what the picture is worth! And then we’re done paying you because the picture is now ours to use.” by a publication. Every time they print it now, every time they sell a copy, and every time they re-distribute it- you are not getting paid.

Try that with music or game licensing and you’ll have a god damn revolution on your hands with the physical head of every major music label or game publisher on a spike.

@Dylan. No, that’s not strictly true. Often software is made to contract and once done, the programmers ‘hand off’ the finished product (along with all source) to the people who contracted you. For example, software companies hire software programmers as contractors all the time. They produce software (and thus a product) as per the contract, then it’s no longer theirs. Sure, they can keep the source code (and probably violate the contract) but there wouldn’t be much point. Like I said before, making comparisons against different mediums is a bit of a stretch but there is some overlap. I can only speak of my own profession as I’m not a photographer.

lol. the point here is that taylor swift is NOT paying the photographer, but is asking for the rights to all their work.

oh yeah… also according to this contract… the photographer can’t even put the photo in his own portfolio!!! (no additional uses in ANY media!)

So the photographer isn’t paid by taylor swift, she gets ALL the rights to their photography, AND the photographer can’t even show the work in his/her portfolio!

um. really?

and yes, photographic licensing is like music licensing where the photographer is paid when the image is used. There are some complete buyouts, but that’s not the case here where taylor swift is not paying for the photos AT ALL

Well, Glenn, you can’t have it both ways. Either you are “not intimately knowledgeable about the photography profession” or you do, in fact, know what you’re talking about. “I suspect” just doesn’t cut it. And therein lies the problem with not knowing what you’re talking about: you’re talking about it anyway!

@curiousjosh How about looking at this from a different perspective then. The photos are being taken at a concert of which the setting, stage, lighting, dancing, singing is all the IP of the Taylor Swift team. A freelance photographer (not under contract by Taylor Swift) trying to capitalise on the IP of someone else is essentially creating a derivative work and passing it off as their own for profit (yes, the photographer chooses the timing, camera settings and does processing but the work is still derivative). Is this fair and reasonable? If you were responsible for the creation of this concert, would you agree with having your IP diluted in this way? If other freelance professions such as food and drink sellers can’t work within the bounds of concert setting, why should a freelance photographer?

@Stephan J Harper I’m merely voicing an opinion/perspective as someone who resides outside the photography profession but has experience in a different industry (software and music) of which there is IP overlap. I don’t take sell photos for a living.

Actually, other businesses CAN trade in the vicinity of stadium shows, but they will have paid a fee to the promoters to be able to set up their stalls (ice creams and drinks for example). Everyone keeps failing to understand that we are not ‘stealing’ or leeching off the back of the artists fame… Our exchange to them in being granted access (not sneaking in, but being ALLOWED in by her publicists or promoters) is the resulting press and publicity.
That’s the deal.

She’s getting something in return for our photos.. That’s where the deal should end.

Do ice cream sellers have to continue paying artists a percentage of sales forever after they’ve been making a profit from the audience at shows? No.

@juntion10 Surely that’s the crux of the matter though? The freelance photographer claims that they are offering press and publicity but perhaps from the perspective of the artist, this is an untameable beast of which they have no creative control. By contracting their own photographers, they can be more selective about obtaining exclusive content which they know won’t end up in media outlets they’d rather not appear in. Obviously fans will always be able to take photos (although generally these are with phones or smaller cameras) but they keep their photos for the memories, not because they’re trying to sell them. Buying a ticket to a concert is like entering a contractual arrangement between yourself as the fan, and the artist. If the artist sets the condition that freelance photography isn’t permitted, or must be bound by an exclusivity contract, then surely that wish can be respected.

Your point is fairly valid but not quite the same. The pictures you take off Taylor’s shows are (presumably) of her, right? Apple can’t claim any ownership to her music (IP), but if the photograph is of her then I think she should be allowed to, because in a weird way she’s the IP in the picture you took so it wouldn’t really be your IP, more like derivative work.
Just an alternative perspective. I think she’s fine to ask to use photos of her or her show setup, but shouldn’t be able to if it’s of just the crowd or something. Then again it gets into the whole issue of what constitutes as IP in a photograph.

The fundamental difference is that an image taken by a photographer is owned by the phtographer, not my the subject of the image. The image is the work of the photographer and the photographer deserves to be paid for that work wherever and whenever it is used. Just like Ms Swift and her music.

It’s not about IP, it’s more about copyright. The copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer the moment it is taken, although, I believe the rules/law are slightly different in the US, especially with the “work for hire”. In a way, you’re argument could be used by Gibson, Fender or whoever makes her guitars, that they own the IP because they were written on their guitars. The issue here is, and it’s not only Swift that does it, that musicians are always bitching about copyright theft of their music (copying isn’t theft because if it’s stolen you have nothing, if it’s copied you have more), and yet they happily present these photo contracts stealing the rights of the photos, which is theft because they are taking the photos without payment and not allowing the photographer to use them. Personally, as a music photographer, I never sign those sorts of contracts, or even bother shooting such artists because there are thousands of other musicians who want good photos and are happy to pay without restrictions. If she has a staff tour photographer and wants to control her image, then she should supply the media with photos immediately after the concert, but she shouldn’t expect them to pay more than their freelancers get paid for a shot, which is next to nothing, otherwise she will end up with no press coverage, except when she is complaining how hard it is for her to make even more millions.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on. We went from Taylor Swift and Apple to photography, which has literally NOTHING to do with the initial argument. You’re fishing for a red herring friend. This is just a desperate attempt trash on an artist speaking out on an important issue.
Good try, but your argument is literally invalid.

It’s exactly the same issue. Exploitation of artists.
I’m not trashing her argument, I’m agreeing with it. I’m pointing out that she does exactly the same thing she’s criticising Apple for.. Expecting artists to let their work be used for free.

Oh wait a second. How would it be if you did something really great and worthy of admiration but then this big honcho comes and decides, “Hey this stuff is actually great, it should be mine! The world shall know it as mine!” And then it is presented all over the earth as something by the big guy, he earns millions out of it and you don’t get even a single penny out of it. I’m assuming from your comment that you’d like that, huh?

Gurl, I’m was a part time photographer then. So, I somehow know how this roll that’s why I commented on this. So shut your fabricated smiley face to your smelly mouth and join learning things with your ignoramus friends.

Well I’m afraid then that you haven’t experienced much of the grimness as experienced by most other artists. And as far as learning is considered, well I can assure you – I’m learning and I will continue to learn. Hopefully you’ll do too. 🙂 🙂 🙂

Artists are asking to get paid for their work. What’s wrong with that?

Musicians deserved to be paid
photographers deserved to be paid.

talking about a contract like this where a photographer is being asked to give over their work for free is just as important as talking about a musician who’s being asked to give her work over for free.

Look, paragraph 2 I understand the frustration with but the financial risk seems more a flaw in the publication/photog relationship over the artist contract. I can understand why someone like TS wouldn’t allow representatives of trash/paparazzi based publications to use photos of her, so is asking to have unlimited rights to sell to whoever you want more reasonable than a publication being required to actually pay you in exchange for time worked?

Paragraph 3 though is ridiculous in the fact that reuse does not provide financial recompense. However I don’t know legalese enough to understand if ‘Subject to the written consent of the publication’ means that this usage requires written release first. Which if it does, again seems to fall in the court of publication/photographer relationships. I’d be interested to hear a legal professional clarify that.

Yours is an easy fix. Same as hers was. You just refuse to work her shows. Just like she refused to put up her music for free. Same exact thing. If you do not shoot the photo’s you are not being robbed.

I have to disagree with your logic. Apple isn’t acquiring the ownership rights to the songs or albums being sold in iTunes or Apple Music, they are providing a marketplace for consumers to purchase the music for their private consumption. If artists, like Taylor, do not like the financial arrangement of the marketplace, they have the right to withhold their goods/services/talent from the market, just like you have the right to withhold your photography talents from being used by news outlets/publications if you don’t like the terms. To equate your analogy, artists permitting you to acquire the copyrights to an artists image (assigned specifically to a single or to many photographs and for you to profit off those images/likenesses after the fact would be like Apple being allowed to use Taylor’s music for profit outside the scope of iTunes or Apple Music, without Taylor’s consent and without her receiving royalties from that use. If you don’t like the terms of the contract offered, perhaps you should become a photographer of such repute that you can dictate the terms of your contract to those wanting your services. Taylor has built a brand and a portfolio of assets of both her singing, performing abilities as well as her physical image and because that brand and portfolio are highly regarded and in demand, she can do just that, dictate the terms or withhold her portfolio of talent in all or part.

Photo and music licensing are parallel in many ways. Whenever an artist’s song is played in public–radio, at a bar, by a cover band, etc– they are (theoretically) paid for that “performance” by a PRO (Performance Rights Organization) such as BMI or ASCAP.

Photographs don’t have a PRO-type organization, but photographers are protected by essentially the same laws. Unless the photographer offers their picture on a royalty-free photo Web site, they are entitled to royalties ANY and EVERY time the photo is used. Now, those terms are usually decided upon beforehand with a contract. An appropriate fee is determined through a client’s use of the photo, scope, and period of time the photo will be used.

So, while it’s not a 1 for 1 comparison, the main argument is that Taylor Swift expects artists (such as herself) to be paid for their work, yet turns around and doesn’t pay artists for their photographs.

The immediate solution is just like T-Swift’s–don’t use the service / don’t take the photograph. Taylor Swift can afford to do that, however, if you’re a freelance photographer that depends on these concert photos as part of your income, that’s where things get tricky.

Probably the only thing on Taylor’s side in this argument is that she probably didn’t create / have anything to do with the terms of this contract. The question is, if she sees this, will she change it?

I agree. I am a web and graphic designer and businesses only want to pay once for unlimited and perpetual use for ‘their’ websites and graphics. My contract states that I own it, but the internet, posting my graphics to commercial accounts repeatedly says that it’s free and fair game. There is such a vast amount of content and availability out there that people take for granted creative work including photography and design. I have to pay royalties on each image I use so my media should be paid likewise. But ‘free website’ services and digital cameras make every amateur believe they can do what we can and better. Taylor just wants more attention and more revenue. Her father owns her boutique record label and he works in finance so he probably drives her on exactly what to do knowing that she’s the ‘it’ girl right now and these corps might just buckle.

ShouLong your issue be with the newspaper/publication you are freelancing with? They are the ones who aren’t paying you. Not Taylor swift. You aren’t her employee. If you were employees by the newspaper/publication then you’d be getting paid hourly. If you are a freelancer, you get paid if they choose your photo. Taylor Swift doesn’t chose what photo of if they put a photo in (for example, like you said, the publisher decides if the photo is cut if there is a breaking news story etc). So..I fail to see where this is possibly her fault? And of course she would want the rights following he performance because the photos are of her. You’d be making continued money off of her look and her brand.

The ‘fault’ is that she demands free use of the photos, and you hit the nail on the head – I’m not HER employee.. therefore she shouldn’t be expecting to exploit my work for free.. just like she says Apple shouldn’t expect to exploit artists.

The difference is her iob involves being creative and writing music and a skeezy tabloid photographer is just a glorified bootlegger who sells unauthorized photography thus also stealing from the artist. Go fuck yourself and send a picture of it to TMZ you shill. P.S Pick up a Guitar and save your soul.

So there’s not an understanding here of the difference between a tabloid paparazzi who lurks waiting to catch people in an unsuspecting moment..

vs the type of photographic artist who’s talented enough to qualify for one of the very few press passes to a concert, and brings a wealth of artistic skill and experience to create fantastic photos that Taylor Swift would like to use in her publicity?

The type of photographer who uses creativity and style to be able to create a piece of artwork from a living moment? Is there really an inability to see the difference here?

Well done Jason, but especially for your patience with the misguided idiots who have commented with their apparent knowledge of how our industry works (or doesn’t as is the case here). The depth of ignorance is staggering.
My take is that editorial coverage is a legitimate endeavour, and should not be restricted. Period. However, I believe that certain agencies and sectors in the past, supplying images from concerts for use in unofficial commercial merchandise beyond editorial publication, has brought about these heinous contracts. The artists are a brand, and I believe they have the right to manage that brand as far as commercial exploitation goes, but not in respect of editorial coverage given by allowing photographers and journalists access to the shows, which in turn (as you have said so many times here to no avail) enhances the artist’s brand through such exposure.

In your example the Photographer is acting like Apple as they are selling photos of the artist’s image without permission for profit thus damaging the artists brand and taking money out of their hands that should have been shelled out for authorized photography.

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Taking photos without permission? Damaging the artists brand?? How do you think she built the brand? Where do you think the photos in the magazines come from? I’m not talking about the paparazzi shots of her in public, but the concert photos in magazines and newspapers giving her positive publicity… who do you think takes those photos?

So many non-photographers commenting on here not getting it. She’s taking the rights to the photos you take of her as a photographer shooting for a publication and allowing herself usage of them for marketing for free. In such a scenario, the photographer is maybe being compensated by their magazine for being there, but Taylor is not paying to use the images afterwards in press kits or online ads or other formats. If she wants to use a photo she should be purchasing it from the photographer, not screwing them over. It’s COMPLETELY analogous to her whining about apple giving users 3 months free without paying the artist for those three months, except that after 3 months, at least Taylor gets her fair royalties.

Per the contract, she could grab whatever shots she wants and make use of them however for promotional purposes without paying a cent to the content creator. And before I read another post saying she owns the photos because they’re of her, NO. That’s not how it works! Copyright law defines the individual snapping the shutter on the camera as the sole owner of any images, NOT the subject, unless a contract says otherwise–hence the crappy photo release. So no,under normal terms she’d have to pay a hard working photographer for the content that she’s instead content to take without compensation. To parallel Taylor’s argument, she’s got plenty of cash,she could easily afford to compensate those whose images she’s making use of. So why doesn’t she?

Actually you are not right about the Copyright in this case. Pictures are of her show, and thats a very different thing from taking her picture on the street. The Show is considered a non public artwork. And you are not allowed to freely photograph artwork. You do need the right to do so.

So in this case she can claim control of how the photos are used.
You only take them under her right!

It’s not reglated in the contract. You actually do not own copyright in this case, no matter if you signed a contract or not.

People were wrong about the reasons, but they were right in that you do not have the copyright.

You are not allowed to take pictures, record video or record audio during shows, unless you are given the right.
Today many artists let it go, when people are sharing photos, videos and audio from their concert as it often helps promote the artist.

If you really are a professional photographer, you must absolutely know this!
I guess you arent professional.
But then you made a fool of yourself, pretending to have knowledge about copyright when it comes to photographing, when in fact you do not.

However it does not seem fair that she can use those photos freely. She should not own right to the photos, since she hasn’t hired the photographer. But I guess, they can argue, the value of getting access to her show, as high enough to compensation for your photographs. Many would argue that it’s not, since you are not guranteed to get paid for them, but that kind of access to an artist would cost you money otherwise, and surely, Taylor Swift is a big enough name, to actually be able to demand photographers that wants access to her shows, to pay for it, but instead she offer ths contract, where your potograhps are the payment for access to her show, seems very unfair, for sure.

This thing makes the analogy relevant. Apple was claiming that arists would benefit from beeing on their service. That way the artists were compensated.

You, as an entrepreneur, set the Terms and Conditions of your work. If you bend and meet below your conditions with a client, then that is a decision that YOU make. You may be settling for less because that makes or breaks whether or not you get the job. Again, a decision you make. May not be the most profitable decision, but a decision is made nonetheless. I’ll tell you, your best option is to become a Wedding Photog. They have way more margin and you can offer multiple products. Yeah, a few shots that earn revenue via multiple channels is great… but how often does that really happen for the little guys? Yeah Photography requires skill, but you do not incur more expenses or costs when you snap 200 more photos than you initially expected you would. The costs and time invested in writing, producing, distributing and supporting a record are (how do I say…?) EXPENSIVE. The artist needs to recoup costs in any way possible. Musicians do this through their intellectual property and merchandise. The Media an artist releases has the ability to be consumed in many forms now. The artist needs to capitalize in every way to maximize returns in the form of revenue. If a consumer wants to go online and download Taylor’s new record, that’s a decision the consumer makes. If a Corporation wants hundreds of thousands of music artists to provide their property to potentially millions of consumers – for free – for ANY period of time – as a prerequisite to being part a service agreement, there SHOULD be SOME sort of benefit to the artist for providing such a generous deed. Trillions of dollars are being lost in the record industry today. Virtually every single bit of digital music released in the world is available FREE OF CHARGE via bit-torrent sites. Only certain artists and niche genres are excluded from free streaming services. Many of the artists in the industry are just happy that fans STILL want to listen to them. Many NEW artists however are realizing that this industry is losing its bottom line from NOT selling as much MUSIC as a Medium. Streaming services are a way to distribute your product in exchange for financial reimbursement when their song is streamed to the end user. So, Compare the work you and Taylor (and her numerous professional partners and staff) do and see how the cost vs compensation work out. I’m sure you are making quite a bit more in ANY situation for ANY photo you take than you think you are. You have thousands of times more opportunity to snap photographs that can be marketed in thousands of directions. The time it takes to do your work verses the time it takes a music artist to do their work is quite different. It takes months and sometimes years to assemble a hit record. Months of planning for a tour to support the record. Staff, Labor, Production.. all costs lots of money. Charge right, get what you want, and don’t accept NO for an answer. If YOU do… then you CAN NOT complain about the contract that YOU signed. If you want publishing rights, DON’T ACCEPT PAYMENT. Its a simple strategy some people call “Standing Your Ground”. It may be a lonely place for a while, but keep up your work, keep the quality up, and maybe some day, someone, somewhere, will recognize SOME thing of YOURS and give you what you want. Until then, do what you have to do to pay the bills. Don’t preach to the choir. We all want PAID in these industries. But since every Jackass has a 10+mega pixel camera phone, photography’s market has gotten a bit smaller. Those who CAN and those who CAN NOT. Same in Audio. Digital Technology has made it easy for children to create music and other digital multimedia via inexpensive computing devices. The market is TOUGHER than ever to succeed in. Do NOT let that discourage you. I repeat. Set YOUR TERMS and accept NOTHING less. If you DO, you are the only one to blame. Can’t hate the player. So, Hate the Game.

And if every professional concert photographer switched to wedding photography, newspapers and magazines would be bereft of unique high quality live music photography to accompany their reviews.

Look, I KNOW we don’t have an automatic right to photograph artists performing in concert.. We are there with their kind permission… But that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to demand our work for free. We provide publicity for them which helps keep them in the public eye. It’s not the same as chasing them down the street invading their privacy and selling to tabloids, this is a profession where it’s in our interests to make her look her best doing what she does for a living.
They pay publicists to help keep them in (and out) of the public eye. A publicists job includes getting as much positive coverage in the media as possible, and that is where we come in to it. We’re not leeching off her. Without concert photography, newspaper reviews would either be much smaller, or wouldn’t get as much notice and page space in the papers. We help maximise her page space in magazines. It’s a job I enjoy, but I’m not prepared to give my work away to someone who demands it when they clearly can afford to pay for it, and when they publicly disagree with the practice themselves.

So the argument here is that music is expensive to produce and photography is not more expensive if you take one shot or 200?

ok… I’ll accept the challenge answering that!

First,
to get great photos from a show, a single photographer can easily take out $20,000 in gear in lenses and bodies! And taking them to shows it’s easy to get them hurt, or to often need repairs.

Second
you don’t just shoot “one photo” to get a good shot. The photographers you see shooting great shots will literally take THOUSANDS of photos of a show to make sure everything is covered well, AND that the subject is not making a funny face like Beyonce in those Super Bowl pics a few years back. It can easily take a full day to go through shots of a single concert, or more depending on how many acts you’ve shot.

and not to mention hard drives, computers, and all the support gear that needs to be upgraded and purchased as bodies get better and deliver larger files

Photography is an expensive, expensive, expensive business, and musicians (who also have an expensive business) should be just as respectful of what it costs to create good publicity photos for them as they are in what it costs to produce music and not expect EITHER artists work to be used for free

Because of their hitlerous humming und bending any right already proven and given, as long it can make them gaining any kind of cash.

To be specific:

Is one of you able to explain ethically why Apple takes two thirds and for what? For delivering a fancy propaganda ruleset that has nothing to do with creativity and/or even reality? For running a system, that anyone can build on its own for costs around 350 bucks per month plus one worker that checks the releases? For using the least common denominator and playing bullshit bingo by lawyers in countries where people stay against it?

For charging fees for entrance to portals that are free for use but have to be paid when you decide you use the exact same information pool without any granted premium content just by telling you are willed to gain money from it? For buying a 3 to 7 times risen developer/creative set which changes nothing just give you the right to attest for the will of using Apple Marketplaces?

For Soft- and HardWare that was developed by thousands of people who have set this work under exact stated licenses which forbid the usage of their sets if the resulting development and its renewals and refinements, its recreations are not spent and fed back?

–

Sorry guys and gals, you are all right and all wrong.

–

There is a reason why the same crap that the music record industry did to itself and to anyone consuming it, either via recreation or by simply listening to the products.

Doomsday was in the late 70s and 1997 Apple decided officially to take that course again by copying it, as they already did before in terms of licensing hardware. The reason why that what you are talking about is that Apple renewed the platform that already failed for all participants in the game.

The difference nowadays is, it is combined with brute law infringement and enforcement. Which leads to the situation you are talking about right now.

–

What makes this very scary is: No one of the kids is having even a taste of realization, while granny Apple is just listening amused, out of better knowledge.

But when granny Apple rapes the kids, no one is standing against it. Because granny Apple is much more badly than one can imagine. And because granny Apple knows that granny Apple is stating it loud and officially, so the rules are set.

Hail! World domination, new world order and a cidre please!

–

Yes, i do spoil it.

No, it is not good.

Yes, you should take a deep breath and consider any thing said.

No, it is not a conspiration theory, it is a well defined set of legal contracts.

I work in a publishing company and according to our SOP, if you were commissioned specifically to take photos of anything, then the publication has ownership of your photos, whether they publish it or not. Being commissioned means they have to pay you regardless.

Now if you just took photos of an event and are selling it to a publication, they only pay you for what they publish. And if they don’t, then you have the option to sell it to another publication so you can get paid. One-time use means one-time use in a publication right? So if it’s not used in a publication, you can sell it to another publication because technically, it hasn’t been used yet, right?

Wrong. I’m freelance. I retain all rights to my photos, even if commissioned by a publication. The publication licenses the photos off me for a specific usage. If they choose not to use my photos, I don’t get paid.
Sometimes I’m paid by the commissioning publication even if they don’t use the picture, but generally that’s not the norm for freelances.
I have no beef with the publications because they’re not demanding they use my pictures for free in order for me to do my job….

There’s a slight difference between being under assignment by a publication and being commissioned as a freelancer.

Many (NOT all) publications send you an agreement stating that they’ll agree to pay you $xxx for shooting the Artist, and sometimes pay you a percentage of $xxx if they republish the photos at another time. And yes, sometimes they’ll pay you even if they don’t run the photos at all (often referred to as a “kill fee.”)

Being under assignment implies that you are working FOR them, and they can have wide range to usage rights, and they sometimes stipulate that they require the authority to relicense the photos elsewhere.
Which would be where line 3 comes into play, ie “subject to the written consent of the Publication.”

Totally agree with this. I think the contract assumes that you’re working for the publishing company on assignment hence, the third provision on the contract. So it’s not necessarily in bad faith, just that the photographer has to clear things up with their publication, I think.

The difference between the 2 scenarios from the eyes of a third person such as me –
1. You are clicking pictures of Taylor performing and Taylor doesn’t let you share/sell pictures of her performance.
2. Apple is selling Taylor’s music and refusing to pay her.
(Taylor is not ‘selling the pictures you took of someone else and not paying you for it’)
Disclaimer – I am no fan of either the photographer or the singer.

No, there is no difference between the principle of the two scenarios.

1. If I take pictures of Taylor Swift, she demands the rights to use my photos, without charge, including for publicity purpose – which means giving to the press, who are the people that should be paying me for the images.
2. Apple is not ‘selling’ her music and refusing to pay her, they were demanding the right to stream her music without paying her – in effect, the same as her using my photos to promote her own business.

I suggest your analogy is flawed. You compare your relationship to the artists as the same direction as the artist to Apple, when you ask “How are you any different to Apple?”

In actuality, your relationship to the artist is exactly the same relationship that exists between Apple and the artist. More correctly, the Artist has the work that is being exploited by both Apple and you and as the artist owns the Brand, in this case, both you and apple should effectively be paying the artist for the use of their intellectual property, which includes and photographs of them selves.

There is a consideration for the artist included in this contract which is provided for photographers “asking” for free admittance and permission to photograph the artists, in that the publication of the photographs you have taken of them “should” generate additional media moments for the artists.

Simply, if you are able to sell the photo-moments to the periodical you freelance for, this should generate revenue for the periodical, which in turn should generate media exposure for the artist, which should lead to an increase in sales.

The artists is allowing you to generate your income in exchange for the advertising potential their intellectual property and performance of it may generate. They should be entitled to direct which parts of their property or performance are advertised and in what way, especially where they have allowed you free admission to their presentation.

I should pay the artist? What for? The artist pays a PR company to generate publicity in the press. The press give the artist exposure, publicity, and space on a page. The bigger the space on the page, the better the PR has done the job. When a photograph is used, the page space is generally considerably bigger… That’s what the artist pays the PR for, and we are providing the pictures to the publications to facilitate that.. the PR gets paid, why shouldn’t we?

Apple initially said it would not pay for the first three months, but as compensation it would pay a higher rate afterwards. Will Apple now, reduce its ongoing rate? It’s like when businesses offer consumers three months free trial if you take a 12 month contract. The price of is calculated so the company still makes the same amount of money. I’m sure Apple’s deal is a lot more artist-friendly than Spotify. Also, have a look at the way record companies operate and how much artists make from sales compared to the record companies. This is why so many artists are self-releasing these days. Artists have always been exploited by money people and as most of the music industry is run by mega-corporations, this is to be expected. If these “big” musicians saw us photographers as artists then they would be more empathetic. Unfortunately, there are unscrupulous people out there with cameras that are making it hard for photographers that are doing this job out of a genuine love of music and are not out to exploit the musicians and simply want fair compensation for the work. Trust me, getting a great music shot is not as easy as most people think it is. Shooting an icon is not the same as getting an iconic shot.

Presumably if I took a photograph of this photographers family based on this article I would be allowed to use that photograph to make money for myself in any way I saw fit? Like advertising for example?

No, you wouldn’t. Not for advertising. However, if I or my family were in public, then yes – you could take my photograph without my consent and any newspaper could publish it without my permission.
If you want to use it for advertising, you need a model release. My concert photos are taken on a ‘press access’ basis, which is usually granted on the understanding that the photos are for editorial use.
I’m not permitted to sell them for advertising.

What defines someone as being in public though? don’t get me wrong, I have a real annoyance towards famous people who use the media to remain constantly in my face via every media available but then complain when paparazzi for example take their photos without their consent and try to make money off them (as it amounts to the same thing, exposure). At the same time, photographers complaining about the restrictions these people attempt to put on them to make money off their image amount to the same thing as well. However, what defines someone as “in public?”. If I followed you around all day taking your photo and you then saw I had sold that photo to some where or other would you not be annoyed? What if I did it every day of every week and earned a fortune? What is the difference and who defines the status of “in public”? Newspapers who make money from advertising who show the pictures accompanied by some inane story are selling advertising space by using someone’s photograph. No model release form was signed by anyone you are just making money off someone else without their consent.

I have no expectation of privacy when in a public place Charlotte. I’d be confused, more than annoyed, if I discovered you’d sold a photo of me.. You’re also confusing what I do with paparazzi – I do not follow celebrities around taking photos of them in public, regardless of what they look like. I specialise in CONCERT photography, and it’s in my best interests to make the artist look as good as possible.. I don’t publish shots of them blinking or gurning.. Concert photography is part and parcel of the artists career.. I’m not pretending that Taylor wouldn’t be famous without photographs, but concert photography IS important to an artist. It helps keep them in the public eye, helps to promote ticket sales further down the line, helps drum up support and new fans… for example, a newspaper might use a file photo from the previous tour to preview an upcoming concert in that area, giving a little kick to ticket sales. You think concert photographers are exploiting the artist? It’s a symbiotic relationship. They’re not being exploited. They’re getting necessary exposure and publicity… free advertising.

junction10, I completely agree with you re concert photography. I think the lines are blurred between what the artist sees as acceptable and what some photographers see as acceptable. I think the problem is that the artist needs photography to remain in the public eye but as with the case of the likes of Chris Martin, only on their terms. They create this public need for photographs of them by using imagery of themselves to sell their music but yet when that need is exploited by photographers they cry foul. It IS a symbiotic relationship, I agree, I wonder why they see it as such a problem. By selling their image you are giving them more exposure as their image is the advert for their music. It’s not like you are Apple and giving away their product for free. A bit like me getting hold of your photos and selling my product off the back of them and you not receiving a penny?

If you take a photo of Taylor and sell the same photos to many publishers and people, you will be making money of her look. Her look is her property right. You are trying to rob Taylor actually. Your argument of photography versus the Apple’s case giving out free 3 monthly trials for Apple users is faulty. Taylor does not use another person’s talent to make her songs and albums, but her own talent. Versus, you use her face to make money. Why can’t you shoot photos of your face and make money? Think about it before you answer.

You don’t understand how the publicity engine and press works FOR the artist.. trying to ROB Taylor Swift?? What do you think she pays a PR company for? To get as much coverage in the press as possible.. and who creates the photos that accompany concert reviews and the positive publicity that the artist is paying the PR company for??

Hmmm… I can see your point as a photographer. However, is it fair to attack a musician defending musician rights with your case?
Especially… have you ever work for her or know the conditions she employes photographer? Some artists like Simple Minds for example do pay photographer (as well as hotel and expenses).
In any case, as a musician, i thank Taylor Swift (dispite I don’t know any of her songs except a hit or two) because as a result of her letter, Apple decided all musicians will be paid during the 3 months free trial period. Well done lady

I’m not attacking her stance on artists being paid.. I fully agree with it.. but how can she say that to Apple when she does the same with professional photographers trying to earn a legitimate honest living? I haven’t worked directly for her, but I know a photographer that does, extensively… and they get paid for it.. That is not disputed.. it’s every other photographer that is expected to hand over pictures for free that is the problem.

No she isn’t – these contracts have been around a while.. but this is the first time to my knowledge that an artist has called someone else out for the same kind of exploitation they are themselves engaged in.

I think the legal aspect most of the photographers don’t understand here is that a Taylor Swift concert is not a public event. It is a private event and it allows members of the public to attend if they have a ticket. In order to be a part of this event, you must abide by their rules. It is not “stealing” your rights as a photographer. It is not taking work you’ve already done and then asking to use it for free. It’s saying “if we allow you to have certain rights and access in this private event to take photos, these are the rules.”

A more appropriate analogy would be showing up at a private photoshoot at a photographer’s studio and taking photos using their lighting and sets. I would expect to abide by the photographer’s own rules in his/her studio – which would likely be “stay the hell out”. I don’t have access just because certain rights of using my camera are protected.

And what many people also fail to understand is that they’re allowing us to photograph the concert for press use.. press use which is of benefit to them, and the sole reason they allow press photographers in to shoot the concert.. in the hope that they will get maximum newspaper coverage in the press the next day, helping drive their tour as it goes along. We don’t have an automatic right to photograph their concerts, I know that.. but when I work, I don’t expect to have to pay to do my job. I’m not getting any benefit from photographing her concert other than the license fee for the use of my images.. and by demanding the right to use my photos for free, she is depriving me of my legitimate income, while benefit from the free use of my photos for her promotion. You don’t see that as exploitation? You don’t see the similarity to the letter she wrote Apple?

Aren’t you going to the concert representing a publication regardless of whether you work directly for the publication or freelance? While the publication may choose to buy your photos or not buy your photos, the agreement only states that you can’t resell the photos you take to another publication without written consent of the artist. You fail to mention that. You can ask for consent and if you get it resell the photos to another publication. In regards to number 3 Firefly or Taylor can’t use your photos unless they get written consent from the publication you are representing. Whether the publication decided to pay you if Firefly uses the photos should be written in to your contract with the publication. Taylor and her management company are looking to protect Taylor from you or any other photographer or publication from reselling photographs to less reputable publications or competing sponsors and then making a profit off of her likeness. What if you sold your photos to Loreal and they publish your photos making it seem like Taylor represents their makeup brand but she represents Maybelline? That would be a problem.

This is way different than what Apple was doing by basically telling all Artists if you want in on our new streaming service, we get your music but you get nothing in return for 3 months. Pandora and Spotify couldn’t do that when they started up.

Taylor isn’t responsible for your wellbeing as she is for her crew and band. If your photographs aren’t used that isn’t Taylor’s management company’s responsibility. That’s your problem. You would be there if some publication didn’t want you there and hired you to represent them. If you want to republish, put it in writing and see what Firefly’s response is. Put it in your contract with the publication that any use of your photos is subject to your license fee. At least from what I read they aren’t asking you to provide them with copies of every photo you take, they want permission from the publications to be able to use the photos for future use and nowhere does it say royalty free, so they are willing to pay.

I’m freelance, but a regular stringer for a big regional paper. Taylor is perfectly within her rights to restrict access to shows and which publications and photographers can have access.. I don’t have a problem with that. The point of this response is that we shouldn’t be made to hand over the rights to OUR work in order for them to use it in a manner for which they would normally have to pay, or in fact to give to our very own clients that should be paying us. It’s about the issue of rights grabbing, which was the whole point of Taylor’s letter to Apple.

Also something not being stated is that the newspapers who are paying you for the photos, and supporting you to be there for your job, usually only pay your bills so they can have exclusive rights. By Taylor then trying to take your photos and freely distribute them to ALL the competitors of that newspaper, she is actually destroying the very institutions that would fund photographers to come get her press in the first place.

She’s not depriving you of anything if you agree to the terms. She is giving access to her show in exchange for use of photographs. If you don’t think it’s a fair price, which most professional photographers don’t, then don’t do it. It’s not exploitation when there is something of perceived value exchanged for something of perceived value.

Do you not see how this is a free will exchange of goods/services? In Apple’s case, they’re using already created works of value and offering them for free. I make my living from royalties and currently have no legal say in whether or not Apple exploits works I’ve written that others have recorded. That is not the same as me voluntarily creating new music for Apple and agreeing to their terms.

As a fellow creator of intellectual property, I am all in support of your rights to your work. However, it would benefit you to understand the fundamental differences here.

Actually, she is reserving the right to further exploit the images for her own personal gain. Artists and writers whose work is sold through online services are at least given a slice of the resulting proceeds.

He could certainly refuse the terms, but it’s a stupid position for the management to put the photographer in. As pointed out several times, photographers equal press and web exposure.

I can certainly understand an artist wanting to limit the use of concert photos to create merchandising that would compete with their own. But excluding a photographer from selling his concert photos to other publications and later book publishers is an abuse of a dominant position, IMHO.

How am I behaving like an Apple fan? I support Taylor’s argument AGAINST Apple.. Apple should NOT be streaming music without paying the appropriate royalties to the artist… but the same goes for the artist.. they should’t be expecting to use photographs without paying for them…

I’ll explain if it isn’t clear.
A photographer gets hired by the magazine or newspaper, then Taylor swift is asking for complete rights to use the photos created from this arrangement, after they are created, for all her own promotional purposes.

I doubt Taylor Swift wrote the contract. Furthermore, I doubt she reads the contracts of every photographer, roadie, sound engineer, guitar player (you get the picture) that take part in her tour. So, she probably doesn’t know about things like this. I’m sure she has business managers, tour managers, lawyers, etc that she trusts to come up with the industry standard contract for services. If she becomes aware of this “counter-rant” she may or may not try to have it changed. My point is, give her a chance to do it before bashing her. And give her the benefit of the doubt before assuming she was somehow complicit in it and putting her fingers together a-la Mr. Burns on the Simpsons spouting “eeexcelent!!!” because I seriously doubt it. Seems like a lot of people are jumping on the “bash-Taylor” bandwagon, without knowing what she is really personally responsible for. Ms. Swift has shown class in my opinion and I really feel like her original “rant” was aimed at helping the emerging artist. I’m not even a big fan of her music, but I feel like she really did this (original rant) out of a desire to help, not be greedy. So, hopefully she’ll see this “counter-rant” and hopefully she’ll try to rectify it so that it will be more in line with the industry standard for this situation. If not, then maybe there is more of an issue with the system of professional music photography as a whole, not just Taylor Swift.

And I’m hoping that bringing this to her attention will help other photographers.. but I’m not stupid.. of course it’s because I’m sick and tired of having these contracts given to ME… If she really wants to help other artists, she can tell her father to stop giving photographers that contract.

I understand the sentiment, but, as someone who deals with media rights, I respectfully say, this isn’t the same thing. A musical artist is creating a product, Apple is reselling that product, and in the free trial case, doing so without compensating the artist. In the case of photography of a closed, private, paid, performance, the musician is still creating the product. The photographer, is capturing and creating a secondary product, which is essentially composed of the musical artists product. Yes, there is an artistic element that the photographer adds to the original product, but, without the work created by the performance, the photograph doesn’t exist. Musicians can quite easily hire their own, staff photographers, pay them for their “work for hire”, and use those photographs for their marketing materials. There is really no need, or obligation to let photographers in, to capture that product, and sell it, even once. Likewise, photographers can take pictures of anything they have normal access to and own those rights and make money off them in perpetuity. Many do. If that’s not as profitable, because it doesn’t contain the product (show) created by the musical performance, well then I’d say that’s rather telling as to where the actual value lies, in those cases. If you’re not being compensated well enough by the publication that is paying you for the work, that’s a argument to be had between freelance photographers and publications, not the artists the publications hire you to shoot.

Most regional newspapers, or even national newspapers want photos from a specific show – the same show that they are reviewing. This means they need a photographer at that show. If Taylor Swift wants to pay for a photographer to shoot every single show in order to hand out press images to go with reviews to any paper that needs them, that’s fine.. the photographer is getting paid. But when a publication needs to send a photo and then the photographer is told they can’t make any further use of the images but the artist can effectively give them away to the photographers very own clients – that is not fair. A Photographer creates a product as well. It might not be a tangible thing like a CD to you, but it is a product which has value, value to the artist, value to the photographer. This isn’t about being able to shoot the show or not.. I walk away from plenty of contracts. It’s about Taylor Swift, having such a high profile that she can force the hand of Apple to revoke a rights grabbing contract, while at the same time pushing a rights grabbing contract out herself. There is no need for a rights grab contract. If they claim that it’s negotiable, then there is no need for it in the first place.

If Apple asked me “Would you write a jingle for free?”, I’d say “no”. You have that right when it comes to shooting Taylor Swift concerts. And THAT is the fundamental difference between creating new work according to certain terms versus the exploitation of a work that you have already created and own.

There is a world of difference between the two. Your rant is a straw man.

You keep repeating the phrase “demanding to use my work free of charge” yet you stated in the original post that you are ‘paid upfront” for any published photographs. So, she is not in fact using your work “free of charge”. If your beef is about royalties than you should rephrase your argument. Your subsequent wording is very manipulative and misleading. Not to mention she is not the literal boss of you (that would be the publication that hired you for your freelance work); and, while she may make “demands” (“Terms of Engagement” would be more appropriate but less inflammatory and misleading) you are free to refuse but then again, I assume you get paid more by the publications for photos of Taylor Swift than you would for a less popular artist and therein lies the true rub.

Photographers who shoot concerts are not necessarily paid upfront for their work.

In the past, there were some newspapers who paid well to have you go shoot a concert, and in return, they would own exclusive rights to an image for a period of time.

These days, it’s more common for a paper to offer to not pay for the job fully. They just give you a little money and expect you can recoup job costs over the photo being re-licensed by other publications.

Any publication who just tries to use your photos without paying you, isn’t contributing to what it takes to produce those photos.

This is the situation which is similar with taylor Swift and Apple.

There are lots of places that pay Taylor Swift for her music, but Apple was wanting to use her music without contributing back to the costs of creating the music.

Even though one source (a single newspaper) may contribute to the cost of creating the photographer’s art, Taylor Swift’s management is acting like apple and saying that they shouldn’t have to contribute to the photographer, but should be able to use his work to promote taylor swift

Actually, I think a better analogy of your situation is that of a programmer working for Apple to develop apps. The programmer gets paid an agreed upon sum by Apple for their development work but that’s it. The programmer does not get a piece of the subsequent millions of dollars in profit Apple makes off their app because the app is now the property of Apple. (This is how things shake out for most inventors. Yes it sucks, but that’s how it is until a programmer steps up and says, “Hey, this isn’t fair! I’m not going to program for you unless you agree to pay me royalties on every download of my app.”) In your situation, the publication pays you for pictures they want then you’re out of the equation….just like the programmer. This is not the fault of Taylor Swift any more than it’s my fault the techie who wrote the code for Candy Crush doesn’t get paid every time I open the game. I would support your argument more if you were being hired directly by Taylor Swift.

The other problem with your position is you are making money off of using her celebrity. It’s almost like you should be paying her to allow you to take a picture that you are on the flip side planning to sell to make money. If she was just some random person 9 out of 10 times these publications wouldn’t be interested.

That’s generally how the press works.. she pays a PR to get as much coverage in the papers as possible.. the PR’s give us press access to photograph the show, we help the PR fulfil their contract to the artist by generating the coverage that the artist is paying for. Does that make it easier to understand?

great and brave post here. I started a twitter offensive where concert photographers all around the world ask her, why she is using these rights grabbing contracts. #‎artistssupportartists‬ @mathombauer

She’s not asking you to come to her concert, you are asking her to come and take pictures at her concert. She’s saying you can, but these are the conditions. Its her concert, why can’t she set the conditions?

Apple wants to use her work, and not pay her for it.
This photographer wants to use her face, and now have her put any conditions on what he does with it.

It seems to me that you are much closer to Apple in this than she is. You both want to use her product without any restrictions from her.

It’s not all that much different tbh.
If Taylor Swift seen and liked the image so much she decides to right-click save as the image(s) that was taken by the photographer and uploads it to her social networks & even may use for further PR advertisement’s is considered “stealing” without written consent to said photographer even if does contain her face in the photo; reason being she is making use of the image to further promoting herself for more publicity & royalty income while leaving the said photographer who captured the moment in the gutter; without said photographer being there at the right place & time she wouldn’t have said image to further promote herself.

At the end of the day the image right’s belong to the photographer; not Taylor Swift; unless she buy’s the full copyright from the photographer which she doesn’t; isn’t allowed to make any income from those images herself i.e posters or cd single/album cover etc…

Musician’s get Royalties from companies who play her song every time on radio or use a song for an advert get’s paid; why shouldn’t photographer’s get the same treatment every time she use’s images “we” created?

While we are robbed from our own right’s to use said image more than once be it for publication’s and/or for our own portfolio.

We photographer’s are artist’s our self much like Taylor Swift is an artist unlike Apple who are a multibillion company; we use visualisation to express our work while Taylor use’s her voice to express hers, Apple make’s iMac’s & iPhone’s.

I think the most relevant point of note here is that, the above is a festival contract, and is representative of every performance on the festival. Has nothing to do with Taylor Swift specifically. My artist has no photo requirements, but every photographer must abide by the festival rules in order to be provided a photo pass.

The quickest and easiest analogy would be that the photo = a song. When anyone records a song they’re not limited to putting it on only 1 CD or record or selling it once. Yes you may buy the album or the picture but you aren’t the only one. Millions of people buy Taylor Swift songs or albums. I have a picture of her and if a magazine want to use that picture they have to pay me to do so. This contract pretty much says you can sell it once within a time frame. Like a record label taking your song that you’ve recorded and telling you that you can only sell 1 CD with it on. To say that Taylor should own the picture because she’s in it is like saying the person who owned the microphone at the studio owns her songs because she sang using it (or the mixing desk or the hard drive on the computer)

Your analogy is flawed. You selling your photo to someone one time to put in print is the same as a record company taking a song that you recorded and putting it on only one CD. Which is what happens in real life? The distributor (be it the magazine, newspaper, online publication, or music distributor) has the right to publish it. When an artist sells her song to a record company they only sell it to one record company with the record company having an exclusive right to publish. That is what you do with your photograph. And this contract allows you the opportunity to sell your photograph just like she sells her song to a record company.

Not unless the microphone or hard disk learn to play the guitar and sing. They don’t create anything. Much like the photographer in situations like this are not creating anything. Let’s be real, the issue is that there are a handful of recording artists that can dictate the terms of a contract, but hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands of photographers that could step up and take the same photos that everybody else is taking. Nobody ever said life is fair, and if you don’t like the rules walk away from the game.

The analogy is still correct. It’s only her contract that binds her to releasing that song on 1 record label. She still owns the intellectual property of the song unless she’s signed it away. And no, 2 photographers with exactly the same camera will not take the same photograph. That’s essentially saying that giving 2 painters the same brush will paint the same picture or give 2 people the same guitar and they’ll write the same song

While you make a valid point – It is unfair to exploit one person without going into the full ‘gravitas’ of the situation. I am NOT a Taylor Swift fan, but I do know of these contracts.
And, a major point blatantly ignored – These contracts with these clauses are used by many, many other artist companies as well – These clauses are becoming commonplace where photographers will grant the rights to any use of the performers IMAGE to be used by the performer –
The concert promoters have promotional photographs which were staged and paid for. They provide these contracted photographs to newspapers, magazines, etc. When the newspaper contracts the freelancer to attend and photograph, they are paying you LESS than the use of the publicity photographs’ publication fees. (Yes, promoters are now asking for a fee to run a photograph not associated with an advertisement for the concert) –
The people you should be vehemently protesting are the media outlets which are paying you slave wages to get photos for them at a cheaper price. You, unfortunately, are just stuck in the middle of their wage-war –

When you sell your photos, you’re selling a physical, tangible product: the photo(s). If Apple were to BUY Taylor Swift’s music for a one time $X million price, I highly doubt that she would think twice about it.

This is utter nonsense. She never hired you to take those pictures and is not using your pictures to promote herself for 3 months. Apple was planning on using the artists work and had contracts with them. Your contract is with the publication who should reimburse you for your time. I feel for you but I think your statement is more emotion based then relevant.

I think the difference here is that the photographer is relying on the image, hard work and reputation of the subject they are photographing. The photographer can’t sell or get paid for a photo of Taylor Swift (for example) if Taylor doesn’t (1) work hard to hone her craft (2) work her way up the rungs towards success (3) promote herself and stay in the public eye (4) pay management/promoters (5) do consistent good work (6) go on tour, etc. So, the photographer is dependent on the subject. Thus, it is not unreasonable that the subject somehow shares in the implied rights of a photo of him/herself. This is not the same issue as the argument against Apple using the artists’ music without paying for it.

Again ill informed, Taylor would not be Taylor Swift without PR, PR which includes getting featured in newspapers, magazines, blogs, etc. These are all accompanied by great images of her, taken by …..the photographer, not Taylor, not her team. Go to Getty images or any other photo agency, do you really believe that any of the people or celebrities in those libraries have rights to those images? No they are owned by the photographer that took them. Apple cannot use artists music without paying for it, Taylor should not expect to use photographers photos without paying for them. Simple analogy to me

I understand your desire to be paid for your work. Any artist of any medium does. However, I think you’re attacking the wrong person with regards to where the change needs to occur.

First, you’re not taking a photograph of a thing or place, you’re taking a photograph of a person. Everyone has the right to limit the publicity of their likeness in a photograph. It’s a fundamental privacy right in the Constitution.

All I see in my contract is somebody limiting the number of photographs of her likeness. She’s also got a business.she’s going to make sure that those photographs that are being printed don’t tarnish her brand. That contract spells out that intent.

You stated several times that you were not hired by Taylor Swift. You stated that you were A freelance photographer attempting to get your photograph purchased by a news outlet.

As a freelance photographer, you need to factor in your costs when selling your photograph to news outlets. It’s the news organizations who buy your photos that should be spending more money for them to cover your costs in obtaining them.

All this response feels like is someone trying to make a buck off of somebody else without having to pay for any of it. Essentially what Taylor Swift was calling Apple out for in her Tumblr post.

In this case, there’s also a HUGE buck being made if Taylor Swift can use any photographers photos for publicity without paying them.

In that case, the buck being made off someone else’s work is Taylor Swift’s use of the photographers work… for free.

Or is it thought in some way that when a photographer makes a little money off of the amount a newspaper or blog can pay (some newspapers only pay $50!) That that’s enough money and taylor swift should be able to use those artistic images to sell tickets for a multi-million dollar concert tour without any compensation to the artist who’s work she’s using to sell her product (her tour)

“All this response feels like is someone trying to make a buck off of somebody else without having to pay for any of it.”

You might be forgetting what the role of the music press is: to cover music events. If you as an artist disapprove of that, don’t let them in. What would happen then is that a large number of press outlets would no longer cover regional concerts. Why should they if there is no local angle? Swift and other artists are using the media every which way they can. It’s a total win-win.

The money argument would essentially be the same if the press doubled their rates (fat chance of that). He is objecting to what I consider abuse of a dominant position.

As for “not having to pay”, check how much it costs a photographer to buy equipment, a car, specialised lenses etc. They would not buy those lenses if they didn’t have to shoot photos in concert venues.

I think we as photographers have it all wrong. We should demand they sign our authorization release to take their photos at our terms! If all photographers followed suit, there would be no more entertainment photography until they decide to hire some professionals and pay them for what is right.

Yeah… or they just employ people to take the shots they want… What do you think will be harder… unionizing all indie photogs, or hiring one decent person to just come on tour with you? I think you might overestimate the importance of indie photographers.

if you look at the images and the screen shots, it is pretty clear that not only did taylor steal the photo, she did not even say she was going to do so to the photographer. she blatantly stole the image and used it to boost her likeness and branding.

Jason, before you pickup your camera, is up to you to sign the right contract. If that’s not possible, put the camera down and move on to a different project that offers the right rewards for you. Simple business sense

Of course that is an option in some cases. You are missing the part where a publication/outlet sends the photog in, and Swift is using the danger that turning down her demands probably threatens the photog’s relationship with their client/employer (the one who is actually paying for the photog to be there). It is called coercion, simple legal sense.

Having worked as a musician with none of Swift’s reach or success, our band was at the mercy of publications and photographers. There were several occasions where hip publications trashed us and used the most unflattering possible images to bolster their reviewer’s poison pen. I’ve also worked as a bit player in film and TV. At he audition, papers are signed, allowing the production company full use and rights to the use of the individual’s likeness and voice, for no compensation (other than the desperate hope that you’ll get the part). Upon winning a part, yet more papers are signed that stipulate the role and rights of the performer and the responsibility of the production company. These deal memos are, of course, made to the benefit of the production. They are in essence, much like complex model releases. If you shoot models and art shots in your spare time, you get to write the model release and the model, paid or otherwise, has the choice to sign or not. I had the privilege of doing a bit part opposite Milla Jovovich, I was paid for my work on the day and get the occasional comedy cheque for royalties but because I was a day player with no name power, when my scene was used in the trailer released throughout Asia, I got bupkiss and same went for when production stills with me were used.

Being part of ACTRA (Canada’s SAG/AFTRA), there is a scale rate based on the size of the part but that production retains all rights to make use of my voice and image in perpetuity. My royalties only ever kick in when the film or TV show is broadcast or screened. However, Robert Downey Jr.’s management team will have worked out a far more advantageous contract for their property, being in a position of considerable power, to protect and profit by his brand being associated with the production’s work. As a freelance/stringer, you have no position of power and the production company running Swift’s business, gets to dictate the model release terms. If you are Annie Leibovitz, there will be an entirely different deal memo and release signed.

On the other side of the coin, the band Garbage ran into the opposite of this situation. A photographer that had shot a set of images early in their career, presumably as a work for hire gig, refused the band the use of one of his photographs for a commemorative book that the band were assembling for their fans. He too wrote an open letter about artists being asked to work for free. Whoever put together his contract had not made a deal that was of much advantage to the band. Upon visiting his site, the photograph in question was on his front page and was prominently used to highlight his stature as a celebrity photographer. Presumably, he had a stronger position from which to deal with an up and coming band. Rather than making a counter offer and asking for even a token payment to the band’s request for use of the image, which they loved. He denied them use and chose to go on a rant and essentially trashed the band, despite the fact that he was exploiting and benefiting by their image and had been doing so for years.

The bottom line is that as a service provider, unless you have significant bargaining power, you are free to either agree to the model release contract or stay home. As an actor, I had to write to MGM and request permission to use my scene in my acting reel, it took almost four months for them to respond but they granted me permission. We live in the age of image control and licensing deals. If you are doing work for hire for a publication, as a writer or photographer, the publication/distributor can claim a certain set of rights and those rights can be re-cut to the advantage of an artist of Swift’s stature and as low man on the totem pole, you do it or you don’t. None of which prevents you from writing to her management company and asking after the fact permission to use a particular photo for your portfolio. And if the publication you are shooting for has an online presence, nothing prevents you from linking to the image and article in question on your own website. A large part of the deal these days, with image control, is to prevent unflattering shots, (up-skirts, nose wiping or on stage gaffes) from hitting the web.

You are not in a dissimilar position to most musicians/bands that haven’t hit it big (hell, Tom Petty had to steal the masters to one of his albums in order to finish the recording the way he wanted and shake out a rotten deal he’d been caught in). Standard recording contracts and publishing deals make those artists’ copyright work the property of the record label and subsidiary publishing arm. There are no shortage of horror stories around the abuse of musicians by the people who ultimately own their IP. Taylor Swift’s image is her product, it’s what she has to sell and the millions spent mounting her shows, recordings and tours will be protected to her advantage and she is dealing from the position of power. There are no shortage of similar deals in the creative realm, sell a short story to a publisher as a first time author and they will likely retain all rights and demand exclusivity because they don’t want you to sell the same story to the competition. Taylor Swift carries enough sway to change the course of a major corporation, you don’t.

On the one hand, I agree that developing artists (photographers especially) tend to get caught on the weaker end of contracts like the one displayed here. Even worse, it is pretty commonplace for photographers to run into the “we’re offering exposure” trap, especially where there are a dozen other, newer photogs willing to take that bait.

I also agree that photographers have and should retain the rights to their photographs – however I also agree that photographers should have the right to barter those right as they see fit. The contract presented in this article is exactly that activity in play – the photographer is being asked to essentially grant an exclusive, perpetual license to their photographs in exchange for being allowed to take them in the first place.

I do disagree, though, with Jason Sheldon’s assertion that Taylor Swift and co. are being hypocritical in forcing this type of contract on photographers for concerts while demanding that Apple compensate artists for the free period of their streaming service. One key difference is that, where Apple provides little to no service in terms of producing the music that they are streaming, the recording artist and their support crew arguably provides 90% of the product that the concert photographer is selling. All of the lighting, backdrop, poses, and choreography used in the photograph is provided by the artist, not the photographer. While I agree that the act of scouting out the correct spot for an image, setting your camera correctly, getting the “perfect” shot, editing in photoshop and all the other work involved in concert photography requires a respectable amount of talent and effort, the end result is still far more a product of the subject than that of the photographer.

Sheldon points out as well that this is not “work for hire”, as if it is an argument *against* this kind of contract. I would argue that it strengthens the argument that such a contract is reasonable. The concert photographer isn’t there for the benefit of the recording artist, they are there for the benefit of themselves and whatever publication buys their images. This contract acknowledges this fact and basically says “yes, you and a couple dozen others can take images of my performance and sell them for profit once, but must ask permission to use those images for more than that, and I retain the rights to use these images as I see fit. If you use the images to damage my reputation, I retain the right to cancel this agreement”. As others have pointed out, the recording artist likely also has a publicist with a photographer (or team) on staff who more than likely produce the majority of images used in actual promotional materials – this contract also ensures that the work of those photographers doesn’t get diluted in a sea of unsolicited photos.

Why on earth would Taylor Swift owe you ANYTHING, as an independent photographer? Why would she owe you opportunity? I ask, as an independent contractor, largely self employed. Why would she owe you the use of her image, for any purpose?

If the concert is paid for with Taxpayer money, or by a newspaper or organization you’re working for, I could imagine why you might have a gripe.

But you’re not working for her. You are a person with a camera. That entitles you to nothing at all. And she owns her image and product. She is well within her right to maintain as much control over the professional use of her image as she wants. She pays photographers to shoot. She does not owe you a livelihood. She doesn’t owe your newspaper the use of her image. Her company is the one paying for the tour at massive expense. The fact that she allows anyone other than those who her machine hires to take photographs, is a courtesy.

The difference is that you undoubtedly shoot concerts for bands that actually benefit from ANY exposure. TS is bigger than most newspapers. She doesn’t benefit from your coverage, as most of her fans will never read an actual newspaper in this day and age. Your newspaper, various blogs, etc benefit from having access. Her people have decided, for whatever reason, that this needs to be reined in.

I can not imagine what would entitle anyone to the use of TS image, at her expense, with absolutely nothing to gain from it.

Absolute best comment in this long list. I’m a photographer and have been on the short end of the contractual stick many times, so my initial reaction to the original post was of total agreement, ala “We’ve got to stick together or we’ll fall separately!” Initial “righteous anger” gave way to thoughtful consideration of all other angles and I too started to realize how an unscrupulous photographer could take material advantage of an artist with just one very unflattering image (reference to the currently popular but horribly unflattering concert image of Beyonce). I think your points outweigh and are ultimately more valid than Junction 10’s.

It’s a separate issue of her retweeting an image without credit to the fan who shot it (assuming it is a fan and not a contracted photographer)…

@junction10
I think your problem is that, **for commercial purposes**, art is produced on a sliding scale from pure commodity to one-of-a-kind. You are closer to the commodity end of the scale. TS is closer to the one-of-a-kind side of the scale. In any field, those near the commodity side have less negotiating power, because the purchaser feels (rightly or wrongly) that they can replace you easily. I’m sure Annie Leibovitz doesn’t have to sign the contract you were offered. Just like I’m sure the band that plays at my local bar couldn’t get Apple to change their terms like TS did.

1. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.”
2. “happy to restrict us to being paid once”

Once upon a happier time I would have thought, even achieving titular “15 minutes of fame” in media would require not to depend on blatant sneer & lies. Of course I know better now, and you are not the first one to attempt it either, esteemed Sir. This is notwithstanding the fact that, your beef should be with Publication & not with the Artist.

You accuse Taylor of exploiting your honest work for “perpetuity”. I ask you to furnish a single instance where Taylor used “your” photograph (in even the very loose sense of Copyright/Licensing) for self-promotion. A concrete exhibit if you please. Not FEI. Taylor herself. For you accuse Taylor herself, not FEI.

Its people like you in your beloved “PR” (really you seem to almost adore it in a fashion 4Chan adores #Rule34), that anti-exploit clauses are required in paralegal documents.

“Are you really supportive of other artists?” you ask. (As if you had any right). Please see below.

“It is shocking, like you say, that any company should expect to exploit artists. It’s not on at all.”

Exploiting how?? By giving these artists a HUGE money making opportunity for _FREE_!? Did the artists pay the millions upon millions of dollars to develop this service? They can’t hang back 3 stinking months (again at apple’s expense) to get the service going and get subscribers?

Jason, just wanted to say thank you for bringing this to issue to light. I’ve been re-posting every chance I get on Facebook and HuffPo and I’m getting some traction. Keep up the fight for artists rights and feel free to reach out if there is anything else I can share or provide.

As a fellow photographer, frankly, your argument is bullshit. When you photograph Taylor Swift at her concert, you are photographing the work of her stylist, her set designer, her directors, her hair and makeup team. You’re photographing an artist herself, whose work includes her presentation onstage. You benefit from her lighting team and the venue. You’re not paying for entry. Wah, wah, “equipment” and “hard work”. No. Taylor Swift is not limiting your use of photography where you set the lighting, you dress the set, you style the models. You are massively benefiting from the tremendous work put into her shows and you’re upset that they want to use the photos for free? You’re mad that you can only be paid ONCE?

If you want to be able to sell your work again and again, create your own content. You are the owner of your photos, but when they contain someone else’s hard work, you SHOULDN’T be able to endlessly profit off of them.

Do you think you should be able to walk into a museum and photograph a painting and sell prints of that painting, cropped hard to the inside of the frame?

So why do you think you can walk into a concert and snap photos of the art on display there and sell it over and over?

Is it because you think you, holding the camera and editing the photo, are creating more art than the hundreds of people responsible for what you’re photographing? Do you have so little respect for Taylor’s team?

If that’s the case, I can’t say I feel bad that she’s not letting you use her like that.

Jason, you’re trying to take advantage of the fact that few people know the ins and outs of a freelance photography contract. This is standard boilerplate. You are hired by (or freelance for, or represent) a publication to get some concert photos of a live performer at her event. This states that you must use the photos only for that edition.

No magazine will let you sell or use the photos for your own purposes, and neither should the subject. What you want to do with your photography of Swift is the same thing Apple wants to do with her music: use it in whatever way you want as if you own it. You don’t. You have it backwards. Or, more likely, you know exactly that your point is off-base and you’re hoping people don’t realize it.

If you were doing a private shoot, where you had artistic control and actually composed the scenes you’re shooting then it’s art, and you’d deserve royalties. Pointing a camera at a stage and taking photos of *SOMEONE ELSE’S ART* does take skill, but that’s pretty much it. It’s mechanical skill, not art, and mechanics get paid once for each service they provide.

So, let’s see. The performing artist and her staff create the music, set up the venue, the lighting, costuming, etc. They go through numerous rehearsals to make the performance just right for the audience, they give you free admission, where you pay nothing for the set, the lighting, or the performance, and you are there because at least one publication has given you a written agreement that if you produce something they can use, they will pay you. And you attend because you have sufficient confidence to believe your work has merit to the intended purchaser. But because the artist says:”If you take my picture, I get to use it, not to earn money on the picture, but to promote my career.” You are screaming “Unfair!”
Sorry, that doesn’t compute. The one area where you might be able to get some mileage would to insist that use of your photo by the artist is accompanied by your copyright notice, which presumably includes the name under which you operate. I am acquainted with lots of folk whose careers were built on such credits.

COULDN’T agree more, literally. I’m not a photographer, but a blogger, but I take all my own photos for my site + social channels, and her team reposted a photo I took at her concert without credit to my account. Somehow she thinks it’s ok to knock off work from others, but when it’s done to her.. it’s not so savory. Can’t have your cake and eat it too Taylor.

What you are doing to Taylor Swift is exactly like going into a modern art gallery, taking photos of artwork and then claiming you should have full rights to the photos. The artists there would sue you for copyright infringement. Yes, you took the photo but “it’s my photo” is not carte blanche to reproduce an image of someone else’s work.

Taylor Swift’s concerts are her work. She sells that concert. You are necessarily severely limited in your ability to record her concert, whether through video, audio or snapshot because it’s hers, not yours.

You don’t have rights to a photo of her concert for the exact same reason you wouldn’t have the rights to a full video recording of her concert.

What Apple is doing to musicians is nothing like the same problem. In that case the musician’s work is wholly created by them (more akin to you taking a photograph in your own private studio of your own content which you setup to be photographed), and Apple wants to give it away for 3 months.

To be fair, I suspect that Taylor Swift probably just had this pretty standard abusive boilerplate legalese written by an attorney. She probably has very little idea of these aspects. (Which would justify your letter, of course). Given how intrusive photography can be to celebrities, I get why they would want to be pretty limiting in terms of what they allow.

It seems to me that our big problem collectively is that we’ve come to accept a legal system where contracts can basically be “I get everything that you want and you get nothing”, where there is no good faith negotiation. Software EULAs are laughable, and 99% of them should be unenforceable for a host of reasons. Attorneys need to create an ethic where they simply won’t write language like this that reserves every single right to their client. It’s not actually really defending their client in any real way, it’s just going for blood, and it’s harmful to our legal system.

I’d point out that any person like Taylor who has a huge empire built around her can’t possibly manage every single aspect of it. She’d have to be a world-class attorney, and a great doctor, and fifty other professions at a high level.

It’s even worse. It allows for the destruction of equipment, including but not limited to cell phones and memory cards. It’s pretty horrific. I posted the 2011 version out of fairness because I haven’t applied for the 2015 tour where the new contract is being presented.

I have similar contracts from other artists this year, so many people (non photographers, non music photographers and non freelancers) are looking for holes in Jasons argument, it just seems so unbelievable i guess, but this is 100% true ….once artists get big SOME of them believe they are entitled to everything for free, while still being compensated for their art of course …

For worst, neither do credit the photographer of the photos she use. Doing that, we photographers can gain some collateral gain at least
My thought is she is using others as shield to hide their own policy as corporate money making machine his business is, not different of other “evil” corporations

Just an observation… The difference between Taylor Swift and Jason Sheldon is that Taylor Swift backs up her principles with action. She recognized that Apple only makes money because it needs artists like her to give them stuff to sell, and she refused to give her stuff anymore. She basically went on strike.

Jason Sheldon just complained about how Taylor Swift (or really Taylor Swift’s managers) ought to not be mean. I’m not saying he’s wrong – though he kinda is, both of them are, cuz their arguments depend on obsolete notions of copyright which ultimately serve Apple and the media outlets more than either of them, or any artist, and the smartest thing on that whole webpage was the part where Taylor Swift was like “i live off my live shows” cuz that’s where the real future of music is, and if artists reverted to living off their live shows and refused to record or distribute through bullshit corporate mechanisms at all, then everyone who wanted to hear good music would HAVE to go to shows and would stop spending all their time listening to bullshit MP3s, instead meeting in public places and rocking out together, which would return artists to a central and necessary role in the creation of art, rather than a tangential part of a business which churns their product around in the gross soup that is mainstream culture- i’m just saying he’s not gonna get anything because he is exerting no leverage.

Taylor Swift needs media coverage, and media outlets need concert photographers. If Sheldon wants her to make better contracts with them, he ought to get enough of them to refuse to take photos for her. Except, i bet the contract line he’s complaining about is present in most if not all big celebrity concert photography contracts.

If so, he is not singling Taylor Swift out for being exceptionally shitty to photographers the way she is singling out Apple for being especially shitty to artists. He is signaling out Taylor Swift for being a hypocrite. Since the shitty thing she does is not exceptional or any reason for singling her out, Jason Sheldon is effectively signaling her out for standing up to apple.

He is attacking the one artist of her caliber who shares his values enough to stand up to this mega corporation. Again, not necessarily wrong, but also not very smart or strategic.

Everyone, especially the creative class, needs a damn primer on solidarity and how to be a class conscious worker. Am i right?

I noticed the file name of the image of the contract your posted is 2011-Concert-Photo-Authorization-Firefly-rev.-1-26-1100055994-2.jpg. So this contract is in fact a contract from 2011? Do you happen to have one from 2015?

Yes, but since I’ve not applied for the 2015 tour, I thought it unfair to use it, especially since the terms of the 2015 contract are even more hideous than the 2011 version, with the threat to confiscate or destroy the photographers equipment including but not limited to cell phones, and memory cards… Friendly stuff.

I read your response and about half the comments here and, honestly, out of all the arguments, I think the only valid one has to do with the part where her brand is allowed to use the images without compensating the photographer (limiting the sale, the use etc, without written authorization I have to agree with her, it’s a way to control how her image is used, even if you argue the subject is not the owner of the image, it’s still her image there).

Perhaps if photographers got together and actually decided to be serious about changing this you guys could achieve it, just that in the contract should state that if the artist does use the image in any publicity material a pre-defined market fee should be paid to the photographer. I say pre-defined because we all know asking for an astronomical price for something is a way of blocking its use so that way the subject would still guarantee he/she could use the image at any time paying a fair price. It’s not that complicated to achieve something of the sort, something like stock images only exclusively between artist and photographer, and that way photographers wouldn’t feel robbed. Maybe having an association to look out for copyrights for photographers in this area, define market fees, standard contracts etc, would be the best solution for this (I don’t know if such association exists, but if it does, it sure isn’t doing its job).

if you’re going to take a picture of another human while they’re working, or not, or something THEY created. they should have the right to not have you post it. if they want to post it, they should be able to because it’s THEIR SELVES or THEIR CREATION. did they ask you to do it? or did you know, fully well, what you were getting into before hand? if you’re that bothered by it, perhaps you shouldn’t do it in the first place? sense maker.

If someone makes a painting of taylor swift, buying the paint, taking the time to craft it, does taylor swift automatically own that painting of her? should she be able to walk into their house and take it?

So is there a prejudice against photography because it is quicker to take a single photo? That somehow it doesn’t take work, or artistry and someone can just walk in and take that photo for their own use?

Is there a belief that unlike buying paint, that buying the $3000 camera bodies, or the $2500 lenses is not an investment being taken if someone takes your final artwork for themselves?

or that the years and years of study to create the artwork is somehow not something to factor in to the value of a photo?

What exactly are we saying about the value of how a painter creates art verses the value of how a photographer creates art? Should one be free?

ill informed Mandle, do you think the Beatles own the images David Bailey took of them? go to Getty Images or any other photo agency, do you think the people in these photos own them? Even down to children’s schools photos, do you think the children in those photos own them? no …the creator of the image, i.e. the photographer owns them. Standard International copyright Law

The photographers are vetted before the show. If the press is not allowed in, the concerts will not be reviewed. Artists need exposure. It’s all part of the game. As for anyone being allowed to use a photo because they are in it anyway they want, please check the copyright laws.

Dear Jason Sheldon,
I am responding to your Copyright, Rant: An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple
First, I am just a mom of two, a new teacher at 47, old hair stylist for 20 plus years, and an occasional amateur artist who got a little perturbed by your sense of self-entitlement. An ugly trait, it is tragically prevalent in today’s society appearing to be the central cause for so much lackadaisical mediocrity.
I cannot help noting you have chosen to address Taylor Swift personally with your concerns. However, later you edited your note stating that in fact your issue is not with the specific artist, Taylor Swift. She stood strong in her conviction about her copyrighted material, persevering to the benefit of her music peers by refusing to release her content to apple. In fact, you clarified that your issue should actually be addressed to the publishers who contract you to take the photographs. As noted in your edit I quote,
Edit: it seems the circumstances of the contract aren’t clear to some readers, who assume this is a work for hire contract presented for being hired and/or paid by Taylor Swift.
That is not the case.. As a freelance photographer, I am asked to photograph concerts by publications. I get paid IF and when the photos are used, not for turning up to a show and shooting it. Therefore, if the newspaper has a bigger story to run and doesn’t have enough room to use my photo, I don’t get paid.
When I’m not allowed to do anything else with the photos, that means I’ve incurred expenses to work, which I can’t recover. Therefore preventing me from licensing my photos to more than one publication, or even (as later versions of this contract stipulate) preventing me from using the images for my own self promotion in a portfolio etc while they can use them without licensing the usage is highly unfair and unjustified.
I did not want to just respond without giving your argument for debate thorough analysis and thought. I understood that you are relating to her letter as a fellow artist who also wishes for fair compensation and arrears for your art. Like so many hard working souls from graphic designers, architects, to hair stylist like Vidal Sassoon artistic thought is at the center of your career. For you the value of your art depends on the purpose, focus point, originality of, and rights to your chosen medium.
The twist in your argument’s approach comes to me when I ask myself what your medium of art is and how it is marketed. You are a photographer not of the Ansel Adams sort who treks off into territories carrying the sole risk, unique interpretation, and cost of his artistic interest himself. You do not want to wait until favor is found in your art and your endeavors so that they were published and sponsored solely for their artistic value. Your medium is commercial and your points of artistic focus have been previously branded and are the intellectual commodities of another artist. Much like Andy Warhol and the Campbell’s Soup can or the images of celebrities, the focus art has a previous intellectual property owner. Also, you are not an artist for art’s sake; you do not accept the concept of a starving artist until your work is appreciated and give value by the masses. Your medium and professional purpose changes your rights to the intellectual property you work with.
You are seeking definite compensation for a job done, photography. You are a contracted professional who specializes in the sale of images. You suspended your right as an artist to seek future revenue for the intellectual property you produce, when you sought possible immediate monetary value for your labor instead. Just as a person writing computer code while working as a contracted agented for a big computer company knows, what you create while contracted on the job belongs to the “man”. You knew the terms going in and you gambled as many individuals do when they choose the freedom of freelance work. Sometimes you win and some time you lose but if you roll the dice and lay the chips down you accept the risk.
Your work within your chosen artistic medium specific to musicians and celebrities is much more like that of a studio engineer, another very gifted artistic profession. He or she uses their artistic prowess as a filter through which the musicians and singers focus their own artist efforts. The difference is as a free-lance photographer you request to be present in their moment. If your work is considered influential, an artistic concept trusted then you are be able to negotiate a stronger contractual relationship. If at completion of an engineers work, there is no use for the content or there is cause for concern about the quality of the product then the original artist has rights as defined within the contract in advance of completion. You are suffering the same fate in relation to your work as the engineer.
You do not dress or stage your point of artistic focus, the celebrity, during the events and/or concerts you photograph. You photograph their presentation of art so you are also a filter of their artistic energy. All the work you create while photographing your point of focus is conceptualized by (in your example) Taylor Swift herself and the team she has chosen to employ. And, given her current celebrity status they have excelled. You are there to capture high quality pictures of those moments. The value of your art comes from the stature, celebrity and creativity of personal branding achieved by the artist whose image you are capturing. If you are the chosen staff photographer asked to follow an artist on tour you photograph what you are ask, when they ask. If you believe, you contribute more you need to negotiate your terms giving value the extended work you do.
As you state in your note you are a contracted agent. The publisher is using the celebrity’s artistic image to sale and promote their publication, a benefit to both the celebrity and publisher. If there is no benefit to them then there is no need to pay you. Therefore, it would appear you are being paid according to a typical free-lance arrangement. It behooves you to keep YOUR brand in mind when negotiate the terms of your contracts. If the individual employing you does not see benefit in reimbursing you based on different terms and you do not wish to give away your images, you are free to do as Taylor did and say “No Thank You”, moving on.
Moreover, in investigating how many other professionally artistic individuals are paid it appears your reimbursement is a common approach across many fields. I choose studio engineers as my primary focus because both industries, yours and theirs, seem to have similar concerns about payment for artistic efforts. However, the approach by music studio engineers and their explanation for what is causing the devaluation of their work within the artistic medium, talent versus engineer, is very different. Many of the articles I read sited engineers working too cheap or free as the catalyst that has pushed compensation down. Those articles made me look back at the contract you showed as evidence an ask myself, should you and your whole industry see more value in your own work? Are “you” the cause of your own complaints, selling yourselves short? Yes, Taylor stood up for herself and in doing so, she benefited her peers. How are your peers behaving?
Consider that you may be taking the wrong lesson from her efforts. Maybe you should also refuse not to sign a contract to release your art if you will not be compensated, all while still allowing it to be used commercially? You are not offering up pictures of Taylor to an art gallery to wait for sell to a heartfelt buyer who loves YOUR work like Andy Warhol. These pictures sell because they are of the celebrity. Why are your peers accepting work instead of refusing to release their pictures until contractual norms are changed for everyone? Your industry has some real heavy weights who could shake things up if they wanted too.
Humanity tends to be its own worst enemy in this dog eat dog world so ask yourself; do you actually own her image as a work of art when you photograph her under contract to a publication? In that setting, are you barrowing a moment in her artistic expression to promote yourself? I respect what she did but I also get your point about fair compensation for your artistic expression. Nevertheless, as a contracted photographer working with celebrates you are not acting solely as an artist at that moment, the intellectual property is not individually yours.
Remember you have described the tough part of being an artistic person working in a white-collar field contracted profession, publication. In that setting, you are not an artist. It is a bottleneck career where only a few people find their way to the top to command respect. Taylor Swift aligned herself with her fellow artist still fighting their way to the top there by offering validity to their struggle while protecting her own interest. She functioned as a smart businesswoman who understand her value and the importance of appearances. Are your fellow photographers doing the same? I think you are gripping at the wrong group of artist. Change will require you and your peers to fix this problem within your own industry. Stand together or accept your fate knowing which battle you are really fighting.
Alternatively, you could change your career path and become an artist who works to create an original product, building your own concept from the ground up. As always with art, the value of your endeavors would lay in the hands of those who choose to purchase it. Art is subjective. Take pictures of images for which you can establishing your intellectual rights to first, and then offer them out for publication in the artistic arena instead of the commercial. Wait and see if the commercial takes an interest moving forward from there. Of course, that limits your access and resources, no free media passes to events. But, it would firmly establish your rights as a protected artist; tough decisions to make.
With kind regards,
LeAnn
A couple of quick references:

This article intrigued me even more than the original Taylor-iTunes article because it is more of a gray area. I have read every single comment and opinion before forming an opinion of my own and I believe this comment to be the most well constructed one that I agree with. One thing that I would like to add is that big artist like Taylor that have a PR team ofter hire professional photographers to take official promotional pictures of their concerts. One photograph of her concert that a free-lance photographer sells is one less that she sells. She is doing you a favor by letting you attempt to make money off of her. She has every right to request to use your images without payment if you are attempting to make money off of them while she already has promotional images for sale. It is her way of making up for profit lost by a publishing company that buys your image rather than paying for permission to use hers.

Very long comment, LeAnn – but probably a better explanation of the ultimate flaw in junction10’s argument than anyone else could have made. As Jason says below – Astounding (although I mean it with far less sarcasm).

Thank you Jason you are making the kind of point I would like to make. This kind of thing from swifty is just more of the haves battling each other as they work tirelessly to find ways to get more out of us the consumers who are what the music industry is. Without us they have nothing but their music and whatever they have amassed from us. We are everything that they have and busy as they are at this kind of thing they ignore that many times.
Everyone in all of life needs to be fair. How rich and powerful does a person have to be before you are just greedy? Can you tell me that I, the lowly auto mechanic, is not important to anyone? Like to go without a car? I am not trying to be rich, just be fairly compensated and not fleeced in other areas of life.

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and screwdrivers. You are hired by a publication to go take photos for them. The contract Swift’s management is having you sign gives the publication the right to use the photos, and then goes on to say that WITH PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLICATION – remember, the people who sent you to take the photos in the first place? – they can then use the photos for NON-COMMERCIAL purposes.

The fact that you’re just a remote trigger release for the publication is your problem. If you’re not happy with the work, and as you claim it doesn’t even pay for itself much of the time, then why the hell are you doing it at all?

She didn’t like the terms she was offered and withheld her album accordingly. If you don’t like the terms that both the publication sending you there in the first place, and the artist you are photographing are giving you, then don’t agree to do the work. OR try to negotiate rights to images that the publication does not select. Good luck with that, this narrow band of your industry just doesn’t work that way. If every photographer refused to do the work, you might be able to force change. But we both know that will never happen, there will always be somebody to do that work, so let them instead of doing it and then bitching about the terms.

Section 3 says that Swift and her representatives have to get written permission from the publication to use the photo(s). If the publication grants them permission to use the photo(s) in violation of your contract with them, your beef is with the publication.

I think people are missing the crucial line in paragraph three which is….
“Subject to the written consent of the publication as to any specific future use…..”

It looks like Taylor doesn’t want any old freelance photographers showing up, taking shots of her and having these shots end up god knows where. She wants to know the publication that these photos may be in and only wants photographers that are representing these publications shooting her. In her mind, she’s dealing with the publications, not the photographers. As a result, if she wants to use any of the photos for her own purposes outside of the original publication agreement, she will seek permission from the publications, not the photographer.

Whether you as a freelance photographer get paid for the non publication use of these photos is up to you and your publication, not Taylor. Perhaps as a freelance photographer, this is something which should be included in your contract with the publications.

That is one lame argument. The choice is YOURS. If you don’t accept the terms of the contract, don’t sign it nor agree to being a freelance photographer for her concerts. Why stupidly sign it and whine later and use her open letter as an excuse to try to get attention for your supposed cause? Dude, YOU chose to sign those unfair terms which is the industry standards these days. Those standards are not dictated by Taylor Swift. She is a musician, she does not dictate those terms. Those are dictated by the event management company who look after her concerts. It’s the same for other musicians.

Yet, YOU are the one complaining when YOU chose to sign off those rights. Why? If you want things to change, you have to get the industry you work in to change, not lash out at someone for fighting for the rights of musicians, but chose to use the word, artist, instead of musicians. These two things are completely unrelated, yet you are naive enough not to see the difference.

I don’t see Taylor Swift whining about how she was not paid when she first started out. She made her own career if you are not aware of how she came into fame, here it is: She baked cookies and wrote Thank-You cards to people whose radio shows she went on. She still writes Thank-You cards to people these days. It came out in the news lately. Google it if you want. She slept in the back of the car when she was a teenager, juggling between school and promotion her music, while her mother drove her around the USA, promoting her music. She connects to her fans online via MySpace back then when she first started out, and now through Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram and more. This is the kind of musician she is. She connected with people, she worked hard to get to where she is. She made smart business decisions. She’s not some pop star you think who rose to fame because her record label told her to say this and that.

Work hard for your craft and think out of the box. If you think music photography does not pay like it used to when people still buy publications instead of Googling, then do something about it. Change, adapt! Get registered with Getty or another image rights company, publish your photos with them and hope online publications buy your photos. Take legal action when people use your photography without permission. Or, switch into photography projects that actually do pay. These are not the good old days where print publications still make money. Newspapers and magazines are dying. More photographers are getting into the scene because photography equipment is so affordable these days, and young photographers who are just learning are willing to sign their photo rights away. That is the sad reality of the industry you are trying to work in. Wake up and smell the roses.

If you are unhappy with the agreement, and more power to you if you are, take another leaf out of Taylor’s book and don’t sign the agreement and don’t take photos of her! If enough of you and your colleagues agree, that will put pressure on her to change the agreement!

Taylor’s company PAID a PR company to make sure her event gets enough media coverage. The PR company is then responsible to work out deals with TV, newspapaper, magazines and other media to cover the event. Whether the newspaper/magazine use a freelance or in-house photographer is not really a concern for Taylor or the PR agency.

The problem of being compensated for the photography work is between photographers and the newspaper media or the PR agency. Taylor has the right to protect herself and work out a mutual beneficial deal with the PR agency and make sure all photographers or videographers follow a set of rules to avoid the chances of the artist’s brand gets hurt.

What Taylor did was purely a business move and negotiation tactic. If Apple music’s original plan was to offer 3 months free streaming and free iPhones to orphans and kids with cancer. I’m sure Taylor swift would not have jumped out and demand music artists to be compensated.

Yeah, nah. You are attempting to profit by taking a photo of her, at her gig, trading on her image. The opportunity wouldn’t exist otherwise. Create your own art from scratch, without relying on celebrity talent, and you’re entitled to the copyright. Just like a song writer.

Many people are much ill informed here. Jason is 100% correct and fellow photographers who understand this genre commend him while heartedly. Why do so many people who know nothing about the issue comment so sincerely. People who do not understand the comparison, simply do not understand how photo licensing works. Its just the same as music licensing. MUSIC – The creator of the music gets paid each time their song is used (played). PHOTOGRAPHY – The creator of the Photograph, the photographer, get paid each time their photo is used in print, online etc. MUSIC – if anyone wants to use the music they need to purchase a particular license outlining how it will be used, and this will be adjusted for how many people will hear that song, how much it will be used etc. PHOTOGRAPHY – if anyone wants to use a photograph they need to purchase a licence outlining how the photo will be used, in print, online, for commercial use etc and the license fee will be adjusted for how often and wide you want to use this image. Anything outside of this licence is illegal. Exactly what Taylor Swift was complaining about – not being paid for her art Go to Getty and price up various licences if you do not understand …

wow, the dissertation from LeAnn ….who seems to miss the point that THIS very blog is a stance, the biggest stance I have seen anyone make so far, yes there are people who could shake things up, but just like many other unfair contracts in existence, take zero hour contracts for example, how does the little guy stand up against these, here too the choice is work unfairly or don’t work ….. well done Jason, I hope these contracts and artists trying to get images for free come to great public attention and shame them into getting rid of these.

1. Apple was trying to use Taylor Swift’s music for free because THEY were not making money giving it away. Taylor Swift said “I do not care what money YOU make when you give MY music away. I want to get paid whether you get paid or decide to give it away for free.”
(This does not, b.t.w mean Taylor Swift is not willing to give away music. It is just that she does not want APPLE to give away music on her behalf. As in any marketing campaign. If you give away free chocolate, you still have to pay the chocolate producer.)

2. The photographer claims to be “Taylor Swift” vs Taylor Swift as “Apple” when it comes to pictures taken by the photographer.
The problem is that in reality, Taylor Swift is “Taylor Swift”, whereas the photographer is “Apple”.
Taylor Swift is willing to let the photographer have her picture (“music”) if he follows the rules she is setting up for having her picture taken (“getting paid”)

So Taylor Swift is just saying the same thing over and over again.
“If you want to use anything that belongs to me, you have to pay me for it.”
Payment could be in “money” or in “signing a contract that gives the artist ownership of the picture”.

If Apple does not like that, they could stop giving away music for free, stop using Taylor Swift or negotiate a deal with her about “reduced payment during the giveaway period”.
If the photographer does not like that, he could just stop taking pictures of Taylor Swift. Or try to negotiate a better deal for himself.

“The standard photography agreement has been misrepresented in that it clearly states that any photographer shooting ‘The 1989 World Tour’ has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management’s approval.”

“Another distinct misrepresentation is the claim that the copyright of the photographs will be with anyone other than the photographer – this agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer.”

“Every artist has the right to and should protect the use of their name and likeness.”

In some ways it’s somewhat similar.
This contract is more like a contract between the Entartainment company and the Publication. Where the photographer must sign, but is still left without any leverage.
And in the Apple case, you have Apple and Record Labels agreeing on the term, while the artist (in most cases) has nothing to say about the situatuion.

So it should evoke the same kind of symphati, wthin Swift.

However, this is not a contract designed for free lancers, I suspect that no such contract exists, since the management want full control of where pictures are published.
And since it’s not meant for free lancers, the contract is written under the notion, that the photographer is beeing payed for the job, and thus has already recieved pay if firefly would ever in the future ask for any of the pictures, no matter if the publication ever published an article with the photo, in the first place.
So your issue is really with the newpaper that hired you for the job.
Although the photograhper has to agree to the terms, they are supposed to do so as a representative of a publication, and not as a free lancer.

Who has the most to gain, the Newspaper that has a review of the show, so people get that newspaper to read about it, or Taylor Swift that gets news coverage has nothing to do with it.
It’s kind of symbiotic.
The photographer taking picture at the concert is just a person doing a job. It’s not like a paparazzi that captures something that might have a real newsworth.

Firefly has the right to the images, since they own the “copyright” of the subject in the image (the show).
One could argue, that if Firefly asks to use any of the images, the publication (not the photographer) should be compensated, since they paid for the work (cause they are supposed to have paid for the work, since the photographer is representing them).
But Firefly can claim that the publication has been compensated by gaining access (limited but still) to the artist.
It’s hard for the publication, to claim any right, not only did they sign the contract. But since the photos are of something they dont have the rights to, they have little ground to stand on, the images arent fully theirs.
The images could end up in some kind of limbo, where neither have the right to them. Firefly didnt take them, and the publication has no right to use them, since they dont have the right to the subject in the images, beyond the one time publication.
This would perhaps be most fair, Firefly could not take advantage of the publication, to get images to use, wihtout having to pay for their own photographer.
But if the images are in limbo, no photographer would be compensated anyhow.
It would be next to near impossible to write a clasule in to the contract, that would give the photographer rights to compensation if firefly ever asks to use the images. Not only because the contracts was not intended for free lancers, but firefly has no rights to tell the publication who to pay. And yet again, the publication does not really own the right to the images they have.

So well, one could argue that Swift should stand up for the little guy. And she should perhaps know that most photographers taking photos for publicaions, at her gigs are free lancers, since so many “news” photographers are these days. And then she should know that the compensation for these assignments are in many cases only payed when a photo is published.
It may seem hypocritical.
But it’s not her contract, that is the issue.
It’s the job situatuion for photographers, that is the issue.
Besides her contract is written in such a way that the photographer is a representative for the publication, and signs for right in a way that free lancers really should not be able to do.

Taking pictures under the conditions, that you are allowed to under concerts, isn’t really an artform. Even if perhaps many that take those jobs, consider themselves as artists (often based on other work they do, payed or not).
So ok, for the “artist” that lives on the comission of selling their “art” it might feel very similar.
But when you do a job like this for a publication, you are not supposed to be an artist living on comission, you are supposed to be a worker. Paid for capturing the event (with little artistic freedom, that leaves you little room to get a sucessfull career out of it, or demand higher pay for the quality of work).

I would say that you are probably better of, question the credibility of Swifts arguments.
New artists would hardly get enough streams to be able to live of it, or pay off loans or record companies.
New artists, often have another income, that they live off.

The ones missing out on any money worth mentioing is higly sucessfull artists. Especally those releasing singles in the next coming few months (close the the launch of the service first on iOS/OS X and then again for the launch for Windows and Android).
The 3 month promotion will continue, but, with a much smaller amount of users on the promotion at the same time it will have much smaller effect on the revenue from streaming.

The other ones missing out, would be the record companies that have planned big launches. They might have done a lot trying to promote an artist, and gambled a lot on the breaktrhough of the single. The streams will perhaps capture the attention. But if it’s more a of a product launch than an artist launch, they might rely a lot on the money the single brings in. Not every artist like that release more than one single of their coming album. And often albums are not up to the standard of the single releasead.

There are perhaps some producers, that are professional producers, but not among the top names. That actually makes enough tracks, to collect royalties every month, and are able to life off that. However, few would have a royalty only contract, since that wasnt how it worked in the days of selling albums.
So my guess is that most producers, getting most of their income from royalties, are the ones that are on the top. And they probably were also payed in other ways for the songs.

But non of those are the small guys.
The small guys make very little on streaming. And would have a really hard time paying anything of with the small income they would get from streaming revenue.
She might be sticking up for people she knows. But they are not small artists, or newcomers.
And they are hardly the ones that makes or breaks depeding on a single release. (and if they do, they probably are living a luxury life, buring all the income they get, instead of saving for a rainy day).

So no one that is dependent on it, really will have to live months without income (they already have on the bank, and makes money out of other streaming services and album sales in the mean time).
And the ones that will miss out on any money worth metioning are those that like Swift, don’t depend on it (with the exception of those burning money, in a irresposnible way).

That does not however make me feel that it would have been fair for Apple to do it like that.
Apple was the ones setting the price. They should only set a price that gurantees that they can pay the artists. If they decide their price to be 0, they should still be sure that it’s enough to pay the artists (via ad revenue, increased sales of other of their products, or so on). You can’t set the price to 0 and claim since we are not getting any money, so wont you (and apple would be making money one way or the other of that scheme, even if the price was 0, so that would just be a way of taking revenue from the artists).

So I would say Swift is either missleading (publicity stunt for her, or a way to make sure that she or at least friends of her would get their money) or she didn’t think the whole thing through.

Astounding. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You represent that a publication is interested in photos of a Taylor Swift performance. The artist grants you access to the performance for the express purpose of taking photos for that publication.

Are we on the same page so far? Good.

Said publication decides not to use your photos. Too bad, so sad.

But you, the freelance photographer, want to recover some of the expense of taking the photos. So you offer them on the open market.

Did you tell the performer ahead of time that was your fallback plan? Did you compensate the model, excuse me, performer, for appearing in your photos?

Does the performer, who allowed you into a private performance with permission to take photos for a sole purpose taking photos for one publication, with the quid pro quo of unlimited use of said photos, owe you a living?

No, sir, the failure of your business model is not the performer’s fault.

It is you who seeks to exploit the performer. Not the other way around.

Not the same scenario at all. In this instance, the photographer is the same as Apple– let me use your brand to make money, but I don’t feel you need to be compensated. The photographer is given special access to an event with the intent to capture and to SELL any images captured at this event. The photographer is not expected to pay a royalty back to Taylor Swift, (or artist), which means they could capture an incredible image, sell it to a Publication for $1 Million dollars, and never have to pay a penny back to TS. In exchange for this opportunity, TS has the right to use the image(s) to promote her brand– The brand that both the photographer and Apple are using to make money. TS could charge a pretty penny for special access rights, and then take out the “Publicity and promotion only” clause for her rights to the images. Then photographers could sell images to the highest bidder and hope that they can recoup the cost of the special access ticket. Or, better yet, TS could simply hire a handful of photographers to photograph the event with complete copyright release– then she could sell those images to any and every publication she sees fit. That would be simplest method, but– instead– she and other artists have created a win-win contract where they also benefit from the images produced. She isn’t asking for rights to create and sell posters, or T-shirts, or to use on albums– she is asking for promotional rights. What is unfair about this arrangement? Is it because you want your cake and you want to eat it to? If so, then become a paparazzi photographer. If not, then either agree to the terms of the agreement or find a different genre of photography to cover. TS isn’t being hypocritical– photographers are simply acting like spoiled children. Without TS and other artists, Apple has nothing to sell. Without TS and other artists, concert photographers have nothing to sell. Without Apple and concert photographers, TS will be just fine. She– and other artists– are under no obligation to give away his/her brand for free. What is it that people are missing here?

I’ve been a professional photographer at many superstar shows (including acts such as The Black Keys, Florence + The Machine, Sting, Beck, and more). Taylor Swift’s contract is nearly identical to what every one of those artists made me and all other photographers sign. Shooting only the first 3 songs has always been standard, as has the image rights. The photographs are meant to be shot for use by a media company one time, not for the artist to make money from over and over. If you don’t like how it works, don’t work as a concert photographer. I have never heard of a press photographer being allowed to earn money off the images they take at a concert, and I’ve shot quite a few concerts. This isn’t a Swift thing, it’s how every artist does it.

With all due respect, that’s absolute rubbish. It’s not how every artist does it. Elton John doesn’t have a release form, nor does Eric Clapton.. George Michael even tells you what the white balance of the follow spot will be. Your comment does not reflect how the business works one bit.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this photographer. Taylor Swift, and no one else, has ownership of HER likeness. Just because a magazine commissions a photographer to take photos of Taylor in concert does not mean that the magazine (or the photographer) has any ownership of these photos over and above Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift pays to put on these concerts. They are expensive endeavors that, granted, make her boat loads of money, but that is return on HER investment. She’s a business woman. There are reasons why photographers have to sign contracts like the one posted here…and it’s to keep photographers from exploiting Taylor’s (or any artist’s) likeness without their expressed permission. This isn’t being selfish, it’s called savvy artist promotion. Taylor and her handlers simply do not want images of her floating out in the mass media that they do not approve of. Bottomline: Taylor has every right to control her likeness. If the photographer doesn’t like the rules set out for shooting a Taylor Swift concert, then go shoot a pretty mountain or a field of daisies somewhere. Sorry, but this is completely different than Apple giving away songwriters and recording artists music for FREE to the masses. It is not APPLE’s property to give away for free. The artist paid to produce and perform said music, and they deserve to be compensated for it. The photographer did not pay to put on the concert, so they do not deserve to make any profit (nor does anyone else) unless it is off of images that are solely approved by Taylor Swift or her team.

What i thik about the case: Artists should pay for the work of other artists. Period. Especially when they can afford professional work. In reality so called new “big stars” are nothing more than a hired puppets of someone doing it for big bucks. This demands fucking everybody legally because part of this sheme is not to pay or pay only when necessary. People are blatantly stupid ti believe in success:) I seriously doubt that Taylor Swift letter to Apple is written in her spare time, it’s carefully polished and designed by the hand of pr and strategy specialists to achieve the goal of free advertising by creating controversy, exactly the same mindset and goal put in this contract for photographers. The solution is simple: When presented with this opportunity say big fucking NO. And share with others why. Like you did it sir.

You bring up some good points. However I can’t help but note that Taylor Swift (or any artist) is performing THEIR work, and THEY are the product, not your photo or the work in snapping it. The photo might be amazing, your best work ever and worth money to you obviously, but it would be nothing if not for the artist on stage. They are giving you the ability to sell their trademark image, but since it is theirs they also can use it as they see fit.

Some of these responses have gotten rather long and convoluted, but the basic point here is that TS (because SHE wrote the letter to Apple) appears to be a hypocrite, crying “I’ve been robbed!” while picking the pocket of the person beside her. If she has any class, she will at least address the situation. Don’t hold your breath.

Um, it’s really simple. A musical artist makes musical product. That costs money. They don’t make money until someone uses it or buys it. PERIOD. Neither does a photographer. And that’s unfair to photographers how? Cripes, that’s how everything works….you wanna pay a company to put something on the shelf whether you buy it or not?

Stop saying you’re creating something. You’re capturing something. You’re being paid by the publication to capture something. You’re not being paid for the content of that photo. You’re being paid for your work. Everything, and, I mean everything, within that photo was created by the artist and their team. Your photo only has value because of that content, which is ALL copy written The photo shoot is allowed by the artist to the publication because the publication is wanting to display the material created by the artist and copy written. You’re being paid to be the conduit. You’re not being paid for what you’re creating. It was all created and copy written by someone else. Stop complaining that you can’t make money from other people’s work. If you want to argue that the value lies in your photo, go take a picture of some random person singing Taylor Swift karaoke, and see how many people want to buy it. The value lies in Taylor and what she has created. If you want to make money capturing something that was created by someone else, go shoot something that’s not copy written. To follow your logic, I can download some of your images, apply a filter, and a frame, and post them on my for-pay website, and you’d be OK with it. Would you?

I’m sorry Jason but you really are comparing apples (get it??) to oranges. It may be in the same realm but in practical terms, completely different. She is supporting artists who aren’t getting paid by Apple Inc. during their free promotional period. In what world is what she wanted from Apple the same as what you want from her? She may be a superstar but she can ABSOLUTELY have a say as to how her pictures are used and deserves a cut from your profit.

I believe there is a lawsuit going on right now regarding an ‘artist’ who just took random pictures of people on Instagram and somehow made a profit out of them. Needless to say, the people who are actually in those pictures are none too pleased. So if ‘regular’ people don’t want their likeness used without permission, you actually think Taylor Swift is going to let you take and profit off of pictures of her???

Just my two cents but in any case I hope both Apple and Taylor Swift fall swiftly (get it???)……sometimes I slay me!

If the photographer was paid to capture the show I think Taylor and her crew can do what they want with the photos. I do believe if Taylor is going to be an advocate for artists… it’s nice to at least credit the person capturing the photos she is using in her social media. Getting that credit means a lot to a photographer.

I’m not sure why but this post gives me an ‘in your face, Taylor’ kind of feeling. Don’t get me wrong, I respect Taylor, but if what you say is true and she is indeed being a hypocrite, then I absolutely salute your post right here. Like!! 👍👍👍

I’m also a concert photographer and am never paid. Some instances it’s for a free show, others, it’s hoping there’s a publication out there that likes my photo better than the other 10 guys/girls in shooting with, and then I’ll get a cut. Hasn’t happened yet, but my hopes are still up.

Nothing frustrates me more than a photo release. It makes it harder for me to market myself as an artist to hopefully obtain a contract with someone that WILL PAY me to show up at an event and shoot.

One example is Kenny Chesney. He’s one of my favorite artist out there and one of the few I will pay to go see. Twice, I’ve been approved to shoot a festival where he was playing, and twice I got denied to shoot his set since I wasn’t on the same scale as the AP, or Rolling Stone. I tweeted his account (I know he himself doesn’t manage that or read it) just to remind them that they were once a “nobody in the biz just waiting for that chance and waiting to get that big break.”

Finally a few weeks ago, I got approved to shoot his set, and it was worth the price of admission (no way I’m shooting 2 songs and leaving with nothing to gain from it). I signed a release and I’ll comply with it. Hell, you have no choice but to sign it, unless you don’t want to shoot.

But why control another “artists” possibilities and opportunities?

Jason, your blog is spot on and thanks for having the balls to put that out there. Taylor was once a nobody too, willing to sing for free to get “noticed.” It’s a shame they seem to forget that once they’ve made it.

hmm… so base on ur logic , when companies like disney, nike or what ever client commission me for a design/ art pieces, if they offer me an up front fee for the projects only but not paying me royalty they are ripping me off? If you are not happy about the contract just don’t agree to it at the first place, not saying taylor swift or her pr is being fair for doing whatever they are doing, yes yes yes there’s a bunch of issue like copyrights, ethic and whatever reason you can come up with to bash on this issue, but when you come to the bottom of it all I can see is you made a Choice (for agreeing with that deal) and now you are bitching about it… , with everything aside it’s really no different from you Choose to buy a beat dr headphone and you r now bitching about them robbing your money because of their price, DO remember, You are the one who agree to this at the first place, are you going to die if you do not sign the contract?? If not then who should be responsible for this? the person who sign his name on that paper at the first place…

Why not just photograph another object during the concert like a piece of chewed gum? You could use the images of that gum for your own self promotion in a portfolio. Why does it have to be Taylor Swift? A piece of gum or Taylor Swift should not matter.They both should have the same value since you are the one who took photographs of them.
Bottom line is that Taylor Swift does not control all your photos, just her image and you don’t like that because now you can’t profit from it.

This is an idiotic argument. I’m guessing that Junction10 isn’t in the business of selling picture of gum. Building a portfolio of pictures of gum or soundstages or stadium seating isn’t going to actually build his reputation. Taylor Swift is complaining about money too, let’s be clear about that. So Junction10 points out, “Look, you can demonize people who take photos of celebrities all you want, but the fact is that if I go to a photoshoot with nothing marketable to tell to a legitimate paper, I get nothing for my time, equipment and expenses”. In fact, this is actually part of why sketchier tabloid journalists exist: They’ll take photos no questions asked, anonymize them, etc. etc. So a person trying to be ethical these days is put into a very tough dilemma: Risk making no money on shoots; or risk breaking contracts and feeding a disgusting tabloid cycle. Junction10 is pointing out that these contracts virtually guarantee that at least some of their photoshoots will generate no revenue for their time and expense. That seems fair to me.

Hi Jason, Thanks for your very very interesting blog post. I think some of your points are valid. But I also found this reply interesting: “If I were Taylor Swift, I wouldn’t want 80 trillion shots of my shows appearing on iStock for $1 either, it devalues the brand.” Shouldn’t TS benefit off of being TS? If you go up and take a shot of TS and it is good and it sells a million copies, isn’t it selling because it is a shot of TS and shouldn’t she benefit from that? You are given permission to enter the show and shoot with the understanding that you are going to be selling the photo to the newspaper. Isn’t the problem with the newspaper? Shouldn’t you have a pay, use or not use, contract with the newspaper who sends you out and you have all your expenses because of the newspaper, not TS?

Read the follow up post.. she gets something out of the photos that the press take, and it’s what they pay a publicist for.. They’ll be collecting all the press clippings and showing what a good job they’re doing getting her name and picture in the papers.. Please take the time to read the follow up post and you’ll see why her contract is unfair, and why it isn’t the case that we’re earning a living off the back of her success…

“Taylor’s camp didn’t make the photographer look dumb; they just proved his point! Artists without Taylor Swift’s power and reach get taken advantage of with exploitative contracts, such as the one the photographer posted, or they starve. TAYLOR CLEARLY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY as she claimed in her initial rant to Apple. Taylor Swift is just using the little guy (again), this time to make herself even richer. She is definitely a hypocrite, and I’m glad she got called out.

Taylor – If you don’t want companies streaming your music unless they pay for it every time, DON’T USE PHOTOS UNLESS YOU PAY FOR THEIR USE EVERY TIME.”

I really enjoyed the post, and it’s a totally different perspective that I never thought of. However, I do see some complications with taking this argument. I’m not familiar with copyright laws as far as photography is concerned, but I do know that people essentially have a monopoly of their person. If Taylor was not famous, and people didn’t want to see her, no one would make money off the photos taken of her because no one would buy them. It’s because of her work, her music, and the persona that she has built for herself, that she is famous and that people want to photograph her and buy those photographs. So essentially she has created a product beyond her music, and any photographs taken of her, and any profits made from those photographs could have only taken place because of that product she has created. Like I said I’m not familiar with every angle of the argument, but I can see where there might be some complications. Great read though.

Photographers “take” photographs with the intent of being paid for their efforts. How often does it occur to the photographer to share the rewards they receive with the celebrities whose photos they sell? To me, Ms. Swift is right on the mark given the nature of the relationship between photogs and celebs.

You still haven’t made a case as to how photographs of a specific event are like preexisting music made available on Apple’s streaming site.

I contend that being a photographer at a Taylor Swift show is more akin to writing a jingle for a company. The terms are agreed upon up front and the artist/company gets use of them. You don’t have to say yes. This is a work for hire and you relinquish your ownership up front. Pretty common occurrence.

Conversely, the songs in a streaming service were never commissioned (akin to being hired) specifically for that service. They were works that existed on their own merit. They are able to exist without a company to ask for them. A jingle cannot exist without a company to request it and photos of a Taylor Swift concert can’t exist without a Taylor Swift concert.

Taylor is not asking for use of any other work of yours. Being a photographer in this instance is exactly like being a jingle writer, not a songwriter. It is merely a work for hire where you don’t like the payment. That is all.

I’m assuming that your silence yesterday was a concession, seeing as how you took plenty of time to respond to many other posts from other commenters in my same thread while ignoring this concept.

Reblogged this on The Millenial Dilemma and commented:
Almost thought I was alone on this one. Thank goodness that’s not the case. T.Swift crying over money issues is sickening, what a spoiled brat. Honey you don’t need to ask for free iPods they are given to you as well as all the other endorsements and sponsorships you have gained over your professional career. That’s more than enough to live off of.

as a photographer, there are far too many instances of this happening. What gives ‘artists’ or record labels the right to rip photographers off! It’s a sad world we live in. The internet has benefited and bereft many an artist.

Your problem is with the newspaper… not her. I’m not just someone from the street. I’m an artist myself, I get how it works, and how it can suck. Thing is, if someone hired you to photograph me but I tell you that you can’t or that if you do I have certain personal things that need met to photograph me then you have to follow it or not photograph me. Just because the newspaper hired you doesn’t give you permission or grounds to photograph Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift and her image is not public domain. I’m not a Taylor Swift fan, but all I see with this is someone seeing that her letter is trending and trying to get in the spotlight responding to it. Seriously, YOU should have a clause in YOUR contract with the newspapers that if the images aren’t used then you have the rights to retain your expenses covered at the very least. It’s silly that you don’t. I know I sure get paid for expenses I incur on freelance gigs.

I think Taylor is amazing. She did the right thing and it’s beautiful to see her, in the comfortable position she is in, to step outside the comfort zone and let the powerhouse Apple know her thoughts. Her action supports all artists. 3 free months wouldn’t hurt Taylor but, it’s not fair and could hurt many other artists. – Cihan Atkin

Sometimes you don’t have a choice… Either you let yourself be, quote, ‘exploited’, or you lose the money, or the chance of having it, anyway. You just have to accept the fact that she is more ‘powerful’ than you, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Even if the entire world sees this, nothing will change. Her albums will still fly off the racks, her concert tickets will still sell. Even if Taylor herself sees this and agrees to you, nothing will change, because to make the changes you suggested, will not be in her favour, and, as I said, she is more powerful than you. Her wants comes before yours.
And, what if you take an unglam photo of her? Who would want an unglam photo of herself circulating around? Your entire argument obviously showed that you aren’t thinking, or thinking deep enough.
As a summary, you have two choices. One, Don’t accept the job. Two, Accept the job and stop complaining about the terms and conditions.
Don’t like the payout? Then get out. It’s as simple as that.

Taylor Swift is a stupid petulant child. I really wish she would just go away, and you lemmings would stop buying her music. How many break up songs will you goons have to listen to, before you realize shes just a two-dollar whore, who is a terrible human being? I mean…. c’mon.

Ps, loved your open letter. I feel far more for you than rich musicians. Hope the industry changes, so you can be right compensated.

If you’re photographing someone else’s art, you’re sadly disillusioned if you think you deserve every right to control what happens with it. Don’t like it? Make your OWN art, dude. If you’re picking a bone with journalism payout systems, that’s not Taylor Swift’s problem. If you like her art & are dying to photograph it, then politely accept that they are the art director & deserve control. She’s not claiming ownership, just setting the terms of how her art can be used. Fair.

Photographers typically provide works for hire, as in the above contract, the photographs don’t belong to them they belong to whomever hired the photographer, unless the photographer publishes its own portfolio in a book or some other circumstances where the photographer is not at the service of someone esle. Musicians typically work for themselves and have ownership of their own music. Granted i’m simplifying things to make the difference easy to understand, but you can’t compare a musician wanting to protect her work with a photographer whose work doesn’t usually belong to him.

What many who criticize the photographer for may be missing the point that artists want press photos because press photos help keep the artists in the news and “relevant.” It’s essentially free publicity when a newspaper or website sends a writer and a photographer to a show.

There may be some aspects of the apples-to-oranges argument because two situations are rarely identical in comparison. However, what is relevant is that Apple is a large conglomerate that can, in many cases, dictate its own terms.

Taylor Swift likewise can dictate her own terms on a contract because of her popularity. Other artists don’t have that luxury. Some artists have to beg publications to show up at their shows.

Let’s put this another way. Suppose a photographer were to capture the iconic image of Taylor Swift, an image so stunning that the marketing team for that artist decides to use it to publicize the rest of the tour. They can use that image without any compensation. Why? Because Swift is so big that her team can bully photographers into signing deals that are not in the photographers’ best interests.

How should it work for most artists? Photographer in Dallas captures an image that the singer’s team likes. She’s headed to Seattle next. News outlets in Seattle use the Dallas photo for a story about the upcoming show in Seattle. Seattle outlets pay the photographer for the rights to use the photo. The news outlet gets to use a great concert photo, the artist gets great publicity and the photographer is compensated.

But because Swift is “bigger” than most artists, she can use her popularity to demand that photographers choose to give up the rights to the artworks they created.

So what rights do you retain over images you take of members of the public who’s picture you take whether they pay you for a portrait or you take them as part of a price of art? Like most photographers photographing non-celebrities you probably retain the rights, in perpetuity. Difference is that you are earning a living off the images you take of someone else. Musicians make their own music, artists make their own art, photographers of celebrity take images of other people, they are entirely dependent on the success of that celebrity for their livelihoods irrespective of how good the photo is. If you’re truly exceptional celebrities may come to you for a portrait and pay you for it. Then you can call the shots with respect to who has the rights to that image. Till you gain that reputation, Swift condescends to give you credit for taking a tradable image of her and allows you to make money from her celebrity if you take a good enough picture. If your not making enough from the pictures you take of her stop taking them, or get better at it so you can charge more. Man up.

As of yesterday Taylor’s team started to credit photographers when their photos were reposted to her Instagram channel. So while her camp may not be making a statement about this, they’re definitely reading and listening. Step in the right direction! While it definitely is a shame that my photo won’t receive credit on her feed, I am glad that I was able to help shift the tide for future creators to receive the credit that they deserve.

Let’s be clear, the photos that the mainstream publications won’t purchase (the up-skirts, the down-blouses, the wardrobe malfunctions, etc.) photographers want to retain the right to sell them to the sleazy publications and web sites. Naturally Taylor Swift would like to maintain control over such photos. That is what this is really about.

I don’t see how this argument is valid. Ms. Swift and her show costs money to create. They should have the right to any derivative works created base on her own images and her show. This photographer has one thing in common with Apple, they both want Taylor Swift to work for free. Apple wants her music for free. This photographer wants her image and her shows for free. Who is exploiting whom?

Well said! Loved it so much! It is time that people like Taylor Swift start to realize exactly how hypocritical they are. Creativity, no matter in what field or by whom, should be recognized. Each and every single person’s creativity should be rewarded and the person should get all the credit for it!
This letter is so awesome, loved it like hell!

Yes yes yes yes!!!! I’ve been a photographer since getting my BA in photocommunications in 1995. The BS that goes on now has made it exhausting just to make a go of it anymore. Something I truly love became one fight after another over rights and disrespect. Thanks for standing up for all photographers everywhere. I hope she reads it.

“Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.”
Hmmm.. How many photographers/media worked for free? How many of photographers/media volunteered?
Fame is short-lived and will fade away.. but photographs/media will always be a memory saved.

You are incredibly brave for posting this and to that I say bravo! I didn’t know any of this and it good of you to inform the public that the good guy isn’t as good as she seems! I think that you were totally right so good for you!!!

I agree that Taylor was being hypocritical in this case and it’s unfortunate she was the artist who spoke up – especially as she has got so much positive publicity over this. But she does make a good point and I think she did the right thing to speak up for other artists. But it’s interesting for me as a non photographer to see this side of the argument.

You get to shoot. They get to use what you shoot. You can both sell. Both sides have to give due consideration. Consideration has to be more than monetary. The problem is all the greed. Especially with an entity like Apple that has stock holders to pay off.

As of my comment time.
Apple stock quote today – 125.27+0.74 (+0.59%)

Seen on the same page of returns.
Apple Loses Federal Appeal in E-Books Case
iPhone maker is expected to pay $450 million, most of it to e-book buyers

I’ve had a similar contract to the Firefly one from Katie Melua’s Management. They required us to sign it at the Press booth for a Germany show when we collected our photo passes i.e. with no time to study it whatsoever – and most of the journalists were German so had no chance with this legal language bullsh*t!

Reblogged this on The 'BUG' Press and commented:
Concert Photographer in an open letter to Taylor Swift: With all due respect to you too Taylor, you can do the right thing and change your photo policy. Photographers don’t ask for your music for free. Please don’t ask us to provide you with your marketing material for free.

I am legitimately confused. Okay you are comparing a song that is created solely by her to a photograph that you take of someone else (Taylor). It is her body you are taking pictures of. It would be totally different if you took pictures of you or your own property. But that is not what you do. If you did you could distribute it out however you like, but you don’t. You chose a profession where you depend on others to make your money. Anytime you depend on others you have to respect there wishes. I understand your photography is art. But when you make art of someone else photography, painting, or anything you have to respect the subjects rules and listen to what they want. Maybe you need to find a new subject. If you can’t live with these rules left by the people YOU WORK FOR then maybe you should try working somewhere else. I mean honestly this argument is completely different and in no way related.

The copyright in a photograph automatically belongs to the person who takes the photograph – NOT the subject. This is the law. Taylor Swift has no right to my photos just because she’s in them… just like newly weds don’t own the rights to their wedding photos – the photographer retains rights and can charge them for reprints at any time in future. It’s a pretty basic fundamental law, and while it’s a ‘private’ event, we are authorised to be there. The Rolling Stones don’t demand to use photographers work free of charge, nor do many other successful artists.. they understand copyright, and that concert photographers generate publicity for them. What many people, yourself included, seem to think is that we are taking something from the artist, making a living of their fame. I can understand why people think that, but it’s not the case. Press photographers earn very little. We don’t sell our photos for merchandise or posters, and editorial use doesn’t pay much at all.. most of the time it barely covers our expenses – which is why we rely on the ability to license our work to other publications in future.. and why it’s important that artists respect that – just as Taylor Swift deserves to be paid every time Apple Music streams one of her songs, we deserve to be paid every time a newspaper uses one of our photographs to promote her concerts.

I am totally confused now because of the comments. Too much information that I can’t weigh which one should I support. Is it that the photos are actually getting famous because of Taylor or is it that the photographer is not being paid when the photos were used? But the whole point is it really comparable? why? because singing and photography are both talent? I’m not really sure what is it now…..

You’re an asshole. You pick and choose comments and the ones that flatter you make it. You think it’s okay to allow men to call Taylor Swift a whore but you’re wanting cash for what pimping her? I know you blocked Tabby Ren Elle’s comment and she’s right, you a fucking vulture.

Uh, I did bother to read and I do understand you. Whatever about people not wanting to. Yep, people have disagreed with you…

So, you’re a photographer who wants Taylor to pay you… and you seem to think you have rights to her image just for clicking a shutter… you didn’t develop a working relationship with her and You ain’t no Annie Liebowitz. You should have to invest your dough unless you’re real gooooooood at whatcha do. And Taylor is not an artist. She’s an overrated entertainer and you’re helping promote that shallow pop culture. But you’re getting tons of traffic and you’re freshly pressed and so you might consider this whole thing a success.

Anyhow, I don’t wanna be mean to you. You don’t deserve that. I just think Taylor and those who make money off of/on her are a big problem for everyone’s earholes.

I don’t remember seeing it. There were a lot of comments. I approved most of them except the really offensive ones. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me, but personal attacks and insults are pointless… I have never called Taylor Swift a whore, I’ve never condoned anyone for saying that (I’ve never heard anyone say it either), and nor is my argument sexist… So if it was deleted, it was probably because of something like that.

I was never offensive. I was not a fan of Taylor and don’t consider her an “artist” but I wrote about the “vultures” of which she is one… and the materialistic obliviousness of the industry… as photographers also focus on what is not helping music, women, or anything real on the planet…

There was a commenter that called her a whore but thanked you for your post… so when that comment was accepted and mine deleted and you could care less… you got these fun exchanges.

‘preciate you explaining your methods… but if I was the ONE offensive person for standing up for better treatment of the planet, wow. That’s pretty funny.

I don’t mean to be mean… But, you’re complaining about “photographs” that she did not give u permission to sell or ask you to take of her.. And she’s fighting for other artists to get money for their work.. That they worked for and entrusted apple with.. These are two COMPLETELY different situations.. You seriously cannot compare the two..

I understand what you’re trying to say.. But she’s not worried about her making money off the 3 month trial period.. But you’re saying that it’s unfair for her to say that about apple and how she’s unhappy with what they’re doing within that 3 month period.. Especially when you feel that the contracts thy photographers have to agree to basically keeps you from making as much money off the photos that you shoot for the concerts.. But how is this personally placed on HER?! Didn’t someone hire you? Not being HER personally? I’m sure that she has people working FOR her that decides these things.. Not necessarily her! You know? But, it would still be great for u photographers to still get money.. But again, this isn’t about money to her.. She’s speaking for the smaller artists that are just starting and not making money due to that 3 month trial.. And the people who put in work to make that album a success that they won’t be getting paid for. As well as her team.. She knows they won’t be getting paid for their job that she knows they’ve done well to help her.. She’s successful either way, but she speaks up for others.. If you’re unhappy, maybe you should speak to the people who handed you the contract, like she said “it’s never to late to change your policies”.. But good luck and this was a great read either way.. My opinions don’t matter, I was just voicing it.. 😁 Thanks!

She’s saying that it’s not fair that a big brand like Apple should be able to use the intellectual property of artists for their own benefit without paying them…

While she has a contract that says she can use the intellectual property of artists without paying THEM, and even worse – preventing us from being able to license our work to secondary publications ever again…
Her latest contract even reserves her people the right to destroy or damage photographers equipment of they don’t fully comply with the terms of the contract…

If anything, the terms of her contract are worse than Apple’s – but she spoke out against Apple’s behaviour when she’s doing just the same to other artists..

I’ve been irritated for years about the lack of respect/rights for photographers/filmmakers. How dare anyone claim ownership of a photographers work? And then threaten to damage equipment if a photographer doesn’t comply? The photographer–who’s put years of effort to refine their craft much like any professional incl lawyers, surgeons, and musicians–is doing the person/subject photographed a favour for pete’s sake!!!